The potential of leg-foot chest compression as an alternative to conventional hands-on compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Issue 2 (March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Takahashi, Yoshiaki; Saitoh, Takeji; Okada, Misaki; Satoh, Hiroshi; Akai, Toshiya; Mochizuki, Toshiaki; Hozumi, Hironao; Saotome, Masao; Urushida, Tsuyoshi; Katoh, Hideki; Hayashi, Hideharu; Yoshino, Atsuto
• Is Part Of: Hong Kong journal of emergency medicine. Volume 26:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: 106
• Page End: 110
• Publication Date: 2019-03
• Subjects: Resuscitation -- cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Emergency medicine -- Periodicals; 616.02505
• DOI: 10.1177/1024907918790068
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2309-5407

Abstract

Background: Conventional hands-on chest compression, in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is often inadequate, especially when the rescuers are weak or have a small physique. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the potential of leg-foot chest compression, with and without a footstool, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods and Results: We prospectively enrolled 21 medical workers competent in basic life support. They performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a manikin for 2 min using conventional hands-on compression (HO), leg-foot compression (LF), and leg-foot compression with a footstool (LF + FS). We analyzed the compression depths, changes in the rescuers' vital signs, and the modified Borg scale scores after the trials. The compression depth did not differ between the cases using HO and LF. In the case of LF + FS, compression depths ⩾5 cm were more frequently observed (median, inter-quartile range: 93%, 81%–100%) than in HO (9%, 0%–57%, p < 0.01) and LF (28%, 11%–47%, p < 0.01). The increase in the heart rate or modified Borg scale scores, after the trials, did not differ between the HO and LF group; however, the values were the lowest in the case of LF + FS (49 ± 18 beats/min and 5 (4–7) in HO, 46 ± 18 and 6 (5–7) in LF, and 32 ± 11 and 2 (1–3) in LF + FS, respectively, p < 0.01). However, the increase in blood pressure, SpO2, and respiratory rate were not different among each group. The increases in the heart rate and modified Borg scale scores negatively were correlated with the rescuers' body size, in the case of HO and LF, but not LF + FS. Conclusion: LF can be used as an alternative to HO, when adequate HO is difficult. LF + FS could be used when rescuers are weak or have a small physique and when the victims are bigger than the rescuers.