Comparison of chest compression interruption times across 2 automated devices: a randomized, crossover simulation study - 14/12/15
, Holly K. Curinga, MSN b, Airan Li, MS a, Lorin B. Grieve, PharmD c, Christopher R. Brackney, DO bAbstract |
Objective |
The goal of this study was to compare chest compression interruption times required to apply, adjust, and remove 2 different automated chest compression (ACC) devices using the same evaluation protocol.
Methods |
Twenty-nine registered nurses and respiratory therapists used 2 ACC devices in separate resuscitation scenarios involving a patient manikin simulating a 45-year-old man in cardiac arrest in his intensive care unit room. Device presentation was randomized, with half of the participants using LUCAS 2 in the first scenario and the other half using AutoPulse in the first scenario.
Results |
The mean chest compression interruption time to apply the ACC device to the patient was significantly shorter for AutoPulse (mean [M] = 31.6 ± 8.44) than for LUCAS 2 (M = 39.1 ± 11.20; t(28) = 3.65, P = .001). The mean chest compression interruption time to remove the ACC device from the patient and resume manual compressions was also significantly shorter for AutoPulse (M = 6.5 ± 3.65) than for LUCAS 2 (M = 10.1 ± 3.97; t(26) = 3.36, P = .002). There was no difference in the mean chest compression interruption time to adjust the position of the ACC device on the patient between AutoPulse (M = 14.3 ± 5.24) and LUCAS 2 (M = 12.5 ± 3.89; t(23) = −1.45, P = .162).
Conclusions |
The results of this study trended in favor of AutoPulse. However, the interruption in chest compression to apply either device to the patient was notably longer than the maximum interruption time recommended by the American Heart Association.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| ☆ | Source of Funding: The execution of this work was supported by a Medical Education and Patient Safety grant through the Veterans Research Foundation at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA. The sponsor of this research had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit this article for publication. |
| ☆☆ | Disclaimer: The material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at VAPHS. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government. |
| ★ | Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this work. |
Vol 34 - N° 1
P. 57-62 - janvier 2016 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Utility of gum-elastic bougie for tracheal intubation during chest compressions in a manikin: a randomized crossover trial
- Nobuyasu Komasawa, Takashi Cho, Ryosuke Mihara, Toshiaki Minami
- Association of triage time Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, and Age Shock Index with mortality in Emergency Severity Index level 2 patients
- Mehdi Torabi, Amirhossein Mirafzal, Azam Rastegari, Neda Sadeghkhani
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?