The Efficacy of Alternative Cardiopulmomonary Resuscitation Methods When Compared to Standard Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Simulation Study

Abstract

ObjectiveThere are limited data comparing the alternative cardiopulmomary resuscitation (CPR) methods (over the head CPR, straddle CPR and one hand CPR) to standard CPR performed by emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Therefore we investigated the efficacy of the alternative CPRs compared to that of standard CPR performed by EMTs in simulated cardiac arrest scenarios.MethodsThirty EMTs of intermediate level participated in this study. The performance of CPR was defined as the average depth, the total number of chest compressions, and the rate of compressions. EMTs performed three minutes of standard CPR and of alternative CPR on standard simulation mannequins with recording devices. Recorded performance was measured and compared between subgroups by the type of CPR, gender of EMTs and gender with various methods of CPR using ANOVA and t test statistics.ResultsThe average depth of compressions was 42.3±5.8, 42.6±4.7, 43.5±3.7, 33.8±6.6 mm (mean±standard deviation) respectively in standard CPR, over the head CPR, straddle CPR and one hand CPR. The total number of chest compression was 330.4±38.1, 334.8±70.2, 334.0±34.9, 312.1±53.5 in 3 minutes. The rate of compressions was found to be 111.5±10.3, 113.8±11.6, 110.5±11.2, 110.7±11.8 times per minute. The comparison of the performance qualities for the four types of CPR showed that the compression depth was significantly lower in one‐hand CPR (p<0.000). No EMT gender difference in the quality of performance of total CPR was noted.ConclusionsThe efficacy of alternative CPRs are shown to be similar to that of standard CPR in a compression‐only simulation cardiac arrest model.