Quantitative assessment of chest compression techniques on an infant manikin. Issue 1 (26th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hirayama, Yuji; Ito, Yurie; Ogawa, Mariko; Fukushima, Yasuhiro; Ikeyama, Takanari
• Is Part Of: Pediatrics international. Volume 64:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-05-26
• Subjects: cardiopulmonary resuscitation -- chest compression depth -- pediatrics -- real‐time visual feedback -- two‐finger technique; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; 618.92
• DOI: 10.1111/ped.15118
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1328-8067

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Current cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines recommend the two‐finger technique (TFT) of chest compression (CC) in infants for a single rescuer. We hypothesized that healthcare providers cannot achieve adequate CC depth with TFT, even if using real‐time visual feedback (RVF). Methods: This was a cross‐over study, randomizing participants to perform three sets of 2‐min continuous CC, comparing (i) TFT with RVF, (ii) the one‐hand technique (OHT) without RVF, and (iii) OHT with RVF. A standard CPR trainer manikin of a 3‐month‐old infant and a monitor/defibrillator that displays and records the quantitative CC quality were used. We set a target compression depth of 40–50 mm and a target compression rate of 100–120/min. Data were analyzed using the Friedman test and Bonferroni correction. Statistical significance was defined as P ‐value of< 0.05. Results: Fifty‐nine healthcare providers participated in the study. The mean compression depth was 24 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 22–26 mm) in TFT with RVF and 43 mm (IQR, 38–48 mm) in OHT without RVF, P < 0.001. The proportion of adequate CC depth was 0% (IQR, 0–0%) in TFT with RVF, 22% (IQR, 5–54%) in OHT without RVF, and 62% (IQR, 29–83%) in OHT with RVF. The mean compression rate was within the target range in all three techniques. Conclusions: The TFT cannot produce the CC depth that meets the recommendation of the current CPR guidelines for an infant with RVF, whereas the OHT does.