Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the quality of chest compressions in different working situations pertaining to ambulance crews using either standard chest compressions (S-CC) or LUCAS mechanical ches...Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the quality of chest compressions in different working situations pertaining to ambulance crews using either standard chest compressions (S-CC) or LUCAS mechanical chest compressions (L-CC) in a manikin setting. Participants and Methods: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed using a compression to ventilation ratio of 30:2 with both S-CC and L-CC. Quality parameters were collected using a modified manikin enabling impedance measurements. The evaluation was performed in two manikin scenarios: Scenario 1 evaluated ten minutes of CPR on the ground and Scenario 2 assessed six minutes of CPR in different settings relevant to work in the ambulance. Quality parameters compared were: time to apply LUCAS, hands-off fraction, number of correct chest compressions and the rate of compressions. Results: In Scenario 1 the hands-off fraction was higher when S-CC was performed (S-CC group 29% vs. L-CC 16%, P = 0.003). We found a higher number of chest compressions (S-CC = 913 vs. L-CC = 831, P = 0.0049) and a higher rate of chest compressions (S-CC = 118 vs. L-CC = 99, P < 0.0001) in the S-CC group. In Scenario 2 we noted a higher hands-off fraction for S-CC (39% vs. L-CC = 19%, P = 0.003), but a higher number of compressions given during S-CC ((n = 504) vs. L-CC (n = 396) P = 0.0002). Conclusion: Mechanical chest compression with the LUCAS 2TM device enables ambulance personnel to provide high quality chest compression even while transporting the patient.展开更多
文摘Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the quality of chest compressions in different working situations pertaining to ambulance crews using either standard chest compressions (S-CC) or LUCAS mechanical chest compressions (L-CC) in a manikin setting. Participants and Methods: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed using a compression to ventilation ratio of 30:2 with both S-CC and L-CC. Quality parameters were collected using a modified manikin enabling impedance measurements. The evaluation was performed in two manikin scenarios: Scenario 1 evaluated ten minutes of CPR on the ground and Scenario 2 assessed six minutes of CPR in different settings relevant to work in the ambulance. Quality parameters compared were: time to apply LUCAS, hands-off fraction, number of correct chest compressions and the rate of compressions. Results: In Scenario 1 the hands-off fraction was higher when S-CC was performed (S-CC group 29% vs. L-CC 16%, P = 0.003). We found a higher number of chest compressions (S-CC = 913 vs. L-CC = 831, P = 0.0049) and a higher rate of chest compressions (S-CC = 118 vs. L-CC = 99, P < 0.0001) in the S-CC group. In Scenario 2 we noted a higher hands-off fraction for S-CC (39% vs. L-CC = 19%, P = 0.003), but a higher number of compressions given during S-CC ((n = 504) vs. L-CC (n = 396) P = 0.0002). Conclusion: Mechanical chest compression with the LUCAS 2TM device enables ambulance personnel to provide high quality chest compression even while transporting the patient.
