Fijačko Nino, McShea Kristina, Šparovec Eva Dolenc, Metličar Špela, Horvat Tomaž, Nadkarni Vinay M, Greif Robert
University of Maribor Faculty of Health Sciences, Maribor, Slovenia.
Celje General Hospital, Celje, Slovenia.
Resusc Plus. 2025 Aug 12;26:101056. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101056. eCollection 2025 Nov.
High-quality chest compressions (CCs) are vital for the return of spontaneous circulation. When hand CCs are difficult, leg-foot CCs may offer an alternative. We reviewed existing studies to describe the current evidence and identify gaps in the literature regarding this technique and its impact on outcomes.
Between November and December 2024, we conducted a scoping review, searching eight databases, two proceedings (Resuscitation 2024 and the Resuscitation Science Symposium 2024), a trial register, animal guidelines, citations, and reference lists. We included studies on leg-foot CCs performed on humans, animals, or manikins by laypersons, healthcare professionals, pre-licensure students, or duty-to-respond laypersons. The intervention was leg-foot CCs; the comparison was standard hand CCs. Outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness (rate, depth, recoil, location). Eligible designs included trials, non-randomised studies, case reports, and research letters with English abstracts from 1960 to 2024.
Out of 1173 records, we identified 14 studies comparing leg-foot and hand CCs, all using manikins, mostly from Western countries (11/14 studies). No human studies were identified. Twelve compared depth, nine rate, six recoil, and eight location. Most studies found no significant subgroup differences, though some reported better performance in heavier participants or when using a balance aid. Several studies observed differences in rate, recoil, and location overall. Of five studies assessing fatigue, two favoured leg-foot CCs, one was mixed, and two favoured hand CCs.
No human studies of leg-foot CCS were identified. On manikins, leg-foot CCs are feasible and may reduce fatigue, but results vary. More research, including animal or human studies, is needed.
高质量的胸外按压对于自主循环恢复至关重要。当手动胸外按压困难时,腿部 - 足部胸外按压可能是一种替代方法。我们回顾了现有研究,以描述当前证据,并确定关于该技术及其对结果影响的文献中的差距。
在2024年11月至12月期间,我们进行了一项范围综述,检索了八个数据库、两个会议论文集(《复苏2024》和《复苏科学研讨会2024》)、一个试验注册库、动物指南、引文和参考文献列表。我们纳入了由非专业人员、医护人员、预执业学生或有响应义务的非专业人员在人类、动物或人体模型上进行腿部 - 足部胸外按压的研究。干预措施为腿部 - 足部胸外按压;对照为标准手动胸外按压。结果指标为可行性、可接受性和有效性(速率、深度、回弹、位置)。符合条件的设计包括试验、非随机研究、病例报告以及1960年至2024年有英文摘要的研究信函。
在1173条记录中,我们确定了14项比较腿部 - 足部和手动胸外按压的研究,均使用人体模型,大部分来自西方国家(14项研究中的11项)。未发现人体研究。12项比较了深度,9项比较了速率,6项比较了回弹,8项比较了位置。大多数研究未发现显著的亚组差异,不过一些研究报告称在体重较重的参与者中或使用平衡辅助工具时表现更好。几项研究总体上观察到速率、回弹和位置存在差异。在五项评估疲劳的研究中,两项支持腿部 - 足部胸外按压,一项结果不一,两项支持手动胸外按压。
未发现关于腿部 - 足部胸外按压的人体研究。在人体模型上,腿部 - 足部胸外按压是可行的,且可能减轻疲劳,但结果存在差异。需要更多的研究,包括动物或人体研究。