Abstract
ObjectivesTo compare cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality between manual CPR and miniaturized chest compressor (MCC) CPR. To improve CPR quality through evaluating the quality of our clinical work of resuscitation by real-time video recording system.MethodsThe study was a retrospective observational study of adult patients who experienced CPR at the emergency department of Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital from March 2013 to August 2014. All the performance of CPR were checked back by the record of “digital real-time video recording system”. Average chest compression rate, actual chest compression rate, the percentage of hands-off period, time lag from patient arrival to chest compression, time lag from patient arrival to manual ventilation, time lag from patient arrival to first IV establish were compared. Causes of chest compression hands-off time were also studied.Results112 cases of resuscitation attempts were obtained. Average chest compression rate was over 100 compression per minute (cpm) in the majority of cases. However, indicators such as percentage of hands-off periods, time lag from patient arrival to the first manual ventilation and time lag from patient arrival to the first IV establish seemed to be worse in the manual CPR group compared to MCC CPR group. The saving of operators change time seemed to counteract the time spent on MCC equipment. Indicators such as percentage of hands-off periods, time lag between patient arrival to the first chest compression, time lag between patient arrival to the first manual ventilation and time lag from patient arrival to the first IV establish may influence the survival.ConclusionOur CPR quality remained to be improved. MCC may have a potentially positive role in CPR.
Highlights
The high incidence, low rate of survival, and unpredictability of cardiac arrest makes it a grave public health issue and a medical emergency
Indicators such as percentage of hands-off periods, time lag from patient arrival to the first manual ventilation and time lag from patient arrival to the first IV establish seemed to be worse in the manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) group compared to miniaturized chest compressor (MCC) CPR group
The saving of operators change time seemed to counteract the time spent on MCC equipment
Summary
The high incidence, low rate of survival, and unpredictability of cardiac arrest makes it a grave public health issue and a medical emergency. The application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plays a critical role in saving lives from cardiac arrest in and out of the hospital, and chest compression is the first part that plays a key role in CPR. In spite of the formal and explicit specifications of chest compression presented in the resuscitation guidelines and examinations for the operators [1], various human and environmental factors in hospitals may result in unsatisfactory quality of chest compression and even varied outcomes [2,3,4]. The application of miniaturized chest compressor (MCC) may resolve the problems of physiological limits and the limited number of operators, providing continuous chest compression by minimizing no-chest compression intervals [5,6,7]. Its actual effects remain to be under discussion [10,11,12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
