Asan Hande, Çevik Erdem, Yıldırım Kemal, Güngör Aydın Cenk, İlhan Abdullah, Satılmış Dilay
Department of Emergency, University of Health Sciences, Sultan 2. Abdülhamid Han Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Turk J Emerg Med. 2025 Jan 2;25(1):17-24. doi: 10.4103/tjem.tjem_100_24. eCollection 2025 Jan-Mar.
Delivering chest compressions (CCs) at the targeted depth and rate is a crucial aspect of maintaining the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Although administering CCs on a firm surface is recommended, it may not always be feasible. This study aimed to determine whether the underlying surface affects CC depth and rate using a real-time feedback device.
An observational study was conducted on a manikin (ResusciAnne; Laerdal). 25 volunteer emergency medicine physicians performed 2 min of continuous CCs without feedback on the floor, emergency department stretcher (EDS), and ambulance stretcher (AS). The following day, all participants performed an additional 2 min of CCs while receiving audiovisual real-time feedback (ZOLL M2 series). Compression depths and rates were measured and recorded in a real-time feedback device.
A total of 150 CC intervals were analyzed. The mean values of compression depths and rates on all surfaces are within the targeted range for high-quality CPR, except for the mean depth without feedback on the EDS (mean: 6.37 cm). There were a statistically significant difference, with both AS and EDS were achieved deeper compressions than those on the floor ( < 0.05). When examining the mean compression depths on three different surfaces with feedback, no statistically significant difference was observed. However, CCs performed without feedback on both AS and EDS were statistically significantly deeper than those on the floor. The mean compression rates both on the floor and the AS were statistically significantly faster compared to EDS. When examining the mean compression rates during CCs performed on three different surfaces with feedback, no statistically significant difference was observed but in the without feedback compressions, both on AS and floor were found to be statistically significantly faster than EDS.
CC's depth are influenced by the underlying surface. It appears more feasible to minimize surface-related differences while maintaining appropriate targets for depth using real-time feedback devices. The mean compression rate could be kept within the targeted range regardless of the surface.
以目标深度和速率进行胸外按压（CCs）是维持心肺复苏（CPR）质量的关键环节。尽管建议在坚实表面进行CCs操作，但这并非总是可行。本研究旨在使用实时反馈设备确定底层表面是否会影响CC深度和速率。
在模拟人（复苏安妮；挪度公司）上进行一项观察性研究。25名急诊医学专业志愿者在地面、急诊科担架（EDS）和救护车担架（AS）上进行2分钟无反馈的连续CCs操作。次日，所有参与者在接受视听实时反馈（ZOLL M2系列）的同时再进行2分钟的CCs操作。在实时反馈设备中测量并记录按压深度和速率。
共分析了150个CC间隔。除了在EDS上无反馈时的平均深度（平均：6.37厘米）外，所有表面上的按压深度和速率平均值均在高质量CPR的目标范围内。存在统计学显著差异，AS和EDS上的按压深度均比地面上的更深（<0.05）。在检查有反馈时三个不同表面上的平均按压深度时，未观察到统计学显著差异。然而，在AS和EDS上无反馈进行的CCs操作在统计学上比地面上的显著更深。与EDS相比，地面和AS上的平均按压速率在统计学上均显著更快。在检查有反馈时在三个不同表面上进行CCs操作期间的平均按压速率时，未观察到统计学显著差异，但在无反馈按压中，AS和地面上的均在统计学上比EDS显著更快。
CC的深度受底层表面影响。使用实时反馈设备在保持适当深度目标的同时尽量减少与表面相关的差异似乎更可行。无论表面如何，平均按压速率都可保持在目标范围内。
