Back to Journals » Open Access Emergency Medicine » Volume 9

Is a mechanical-assist device better than manual chest compression? A randomized controlled trial

Authors Yuksen C, Prachanukool T, Aramvanitch K, Thongwichit N, Sawanyawisuth K, Sittichanbuncha Y

Received 23 January 2017

Accepted for publication 27 May 2017

Published 29 August 2017 Volume 2017:9 Pages 63—67

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S133074

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Dr Hans-Christoph Pape


Chaiyaporn Yuksen,1 Thidathit Prachanukool,1 Kasamon Aramvanitch,1 Nuttamon Thongwichit,1 Kittisak Sawanyawisuth,2–4 Yuwares Sittichanbuncha1

1Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 2Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, 3Research Center in Back, Neck Other Joint Pain and Human Performance (BNOJPH), 4Sleep Apnea Research Group, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

Background: Chest compression quality is a determinant of survival from sudden cardiac arrest. The CPR RsQ Assist Device (CPR RAD) is a new cardiopulmonary resuscitation device for chest compression. It is operated manually but it does not pull up on the chest on the up stroke. The aim of this study was to compare the CPR RAD with standard manual compression in terms of chest compression quality in a manikin model.
Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to either the device or manual chest compression group. Each participant performed a maximum of 4 minutes of hands-only compression with or without the device. During chest compression, the following quality parameters from the manikin were recorded: compression rate, compression depth, and correctness of hand position.
Results: Duration of chest compression was significantly higher in device users compared with manual compression (223.93±36.53 vs 179.67±50.81 seconds; P<0.001). The mean compression depth did not differ in a statistically significant way between manual compression and device at 2 minutes (56.42±6.42 vs 54.25±5.32; P=0.052). During the first and second minutes, compression rate was higher in cases of standard compression (133.21±15.95 vs 108±9.45; P<0.001 and 127.41±27.77 vs 108.5±9.93; P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of participants who employed compression that was too shallow or exhibited incorrect hand position.
Conclusion: The CPR RAD is more effective in chest compression compared with manual chest compression, as using the device led to better results in terms of fatigue reduction and correct compression rate than standard manual compression.

Keywords: chest compression, CPR RsQ Assist device, outcomes
 

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]