Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?


San I., Bekgöz B., ERGİN M. , Usul E.

Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol.21, no.2, pp.69-74, 2021 (Journal Indexed in ESCI) identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 21 Issue: 2
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.4103/2452-2473.309135
  • Title of Journal : Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine
  • Page Numbers: pp.69-74

Abstract

© 2021 Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey. All rights reserved.OBJECTIVES: Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality. METHODS: This is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system. RESULTS: The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%-75% = 117.9-133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%-75% = 102.1-102.7) (P < 0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 mm (IQR: 25%-75% = 32.9-45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 mm for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%-75% = 51.8-55.0) (P < 0.001). The median hands-off time during CPR was 6.9% (IQR: 25-75 = 5.0%-10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%-75% = 8.2%-12.5%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health-care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.