A manually powered mechanical resuscitation device used by a single rescuer: a randomised controlled manikin study.

Resuscitation

Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Surgical Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.

Published: July 2011

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the performance of a manually operated mechanical resuscitation device (MRD), called "Animax," with standard single rescuer basic life support (BLS) among 80 trained medical students.
  • The use of the MRD resulted in significantly more effective chest compressions, less hands-off time, and a higher minute-volume of ventilation compared to standard BLS; however, both methods failed to meet the 2005 ERC guidelines for ventilation volumes.
  • The findings suggest that the MRD is superior for chest compressions in a simulated environment, but further clinical studies are necessary to assess its safety and effectiveness in real patient situations.

Article Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this randomized, open, controlled crossover manikin study was to compare the performance of "Animax", a manually operated hand-powered mechanical resuscitation device (MRD) to standard single rescuer basic life support (BLS).

Methods: Following training, 80 medical students performed either standard BLS or used an MRD for 12 min in random order. We compared the quality of chest compressions (effective compressions, compression depth and rate, absolute hands-off time, hand position, decompression), and of ventilation including the number of gastric inflations. An effective compression was defined as a compression performed with correct depth, hand position and decompression.

Results: The use of the MRD resulted in a significantly higher number of effective compressions compared to standard BLS (67 ± 34 vs. 41 ± 34%, p<0.001). In a comparison with standard BLS, the use of the MRD resulted in less absolute hands-off time (264 ± 57 vs. 79 ± 40 s, p<0.001) and in a higher minute-volume (1.86 ± 0.7 vs. 1.62 ± 0.7 l, p=0.020). However, ventilation volumes were below the 2005 ERC guidelines for both methods. Gastric inflations occurred only in 0 ± 0.1% with the MRD compared to 3 ± 7% during standard BLS (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Single rescuer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation with the manually operated MRD was superior to standard BLS regarding chest compressions in this simulation study. The MRD delivered a higher minute-volume but did not achieve the recommended minimal volume. Further clinical studies are needed to test the MRD's safety and efficacy in patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.02.026DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mechanical resuscitation
8
resuscitation device
8
single rescuer
8
manikin study
8
standard bls
8
effective compressions
8
hand position
8
manually powered
4
powered mechanical
4
device single
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!