Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Using Wing Boards versus Walking Next to a Moving Stretcher: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study
Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Using Wing Boards versus Walking Next to a Moving Stretcher: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/jcm9051584
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Yoshino, Atsuto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nakashima, Yukako;Saitoh, Takeji;Yoshino, Atsuto
背景：当救护人员走在担架旁边并按压患者的胸部时，救护人员产生低质量的胸外按压。我们假设配备翼板的担架比传统方法更能进行胸外按压。方法：采用前瞻性、随机、交叉研究的方法，对45名医学工作者和学生进行研究。他们在移动的担架上对人体模型进行了手动胸外按压，同时步行（步行法）或骑在担架上的翅膀上（翅膀法）。记录胸外按压的深度。在试验前后测量了参与者的生命体征。结果：机翼法的平均压迫深度（5.40 +/- 0.50 cm）大于步行法（4.85 +/- 0.80 cm; p < 0.01）。两分钟内的平均按压率分别为215 +/- 8次和217 +/- 5次按压（p = ns）。与步行队列相比，翼法队列中血压（14 +/- 11 vs. 22 +/- 14 mmHg）、心率（32 +/- 13 vs. 58 +/- 20 bpm）和改良博格量表（4（四分位数间距：2-4）vs. 6（5-7））的变化显著较低（p < 0.01）。在步行法中，救援者的体型和体格与胸外按压深度呈正相关;然而，我们在机翼法中没有发现显著相关性。结论：在担架上进行胸部按压，同时使用机翼方法移动，可以产生高质量的胸部按压，特别是对于体型和体格较小的救援人员。
Background: When a rescuer walks alongside a stretcher and compresses the patient's chest, the rescuer produces low-quality chest compressions. We hypothesized that a stretcher equipped with wing boards allows for better chest compressions than the conventional method. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, crossover study, we enrolled 45 medical workers and students. They performed hands-on chest compressions to a mannequin on a moving stretcher, while either walking (the walk method) or riding on wings attached to the stretcher (the wing method). The depths of the chest compressions were recorded. The participants' vital signs were measured before and after the trials. Results: The average compression depth during the wing method (5.40 +/- 0.50 cm) was greater than during the walk method (4.85 +/- 0.80 cm; p < 0.01). The average compression rates during the two minutes were 215 +/- 8 and 217 +/- 5 compressions in the walk and wing methods, respectively (p = ns). Changes in blood pressure (14 +/- 11 vs. 22 +/- 14 mmHg), heart rate (32 +/- 13 vs. 58 +/- 20 bpm), and modified Borg scale (4 (interquartile range: 2-4) vs. 6 (5-7)) were significantly lower in the wing method cohort compared to the walking cohort (p < 0.01). The rescuer's size and physique were positively correlated with the chest compression depth during the walk method; however, we found no significant correlation in the wing method. Conclusions: Chest compressions performed on the stretcher while moving using the wing method can produce high-quality chest compressions, especially for rescuers with a smaller size and physique.