IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model

Author

Listed:
  • Bernhard Rössler
  • Julius Goschin
  • Mathias Maleczek
  • Felix Piringer
  • Rainer Thell
  • Martina Mittlböck
  • Karl Schebesta

Abstract

Aim of the study: Bystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do recommend a chest compression (CC)-only algorithm for dispatcher-assisted bystander resuscitation, which may lead to increased fatigue and a loss of compression depth. Consequently, we wanted to test the hypothesis that CCs are more correctly delivered in a flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation algorithm than in a CC-only algorithm. Methods: With the use of a manikin model, 84 laypersons were randomized to perform either flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation or CC-only resuscitation for 5min. The primary outcome was the total number of CCs. Results: The total number of correct CCs did not significantly differ between the CC-only group and the standard group (63 [±81] vs. 79 [±86]; p = 0.394; 95% CI of difference: 21–53). The total hand-off time was significantly lower in the CC-only group than in the standard BLS group. The relative number of correct CCs (the fraction of the total number of CCs achieving 5-6cm) and the level of exhaustion after BLS did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion: Standard BLS did not lead to an increase in correctly delivered CCs compared to CC-only resuscitation and exhibited significantly more hand-off time. The low rate of CCs in both groups indicates the need for an increased focus on performance during BLS training.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernhard Rössler & Julius Goschin & Mathias Maleczek & Felix Piringer & Rainer Thell & Martina Mittlböck & Karl Schebesta, 2020. "Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-12, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228702
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228702
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228702&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228702?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.