Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by laypersons is a key determinant of both outcome and survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Dispatcher-assisted CPR (telephone-CPR, T-CPR) increases the frequency and correctness of bystander-CPR but results in prolonged time to first chest compressions. However, it remains unclear whether instructions for rescue ventilation and/or chest compressions should be recommended for dispatcher-assisted CPR.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate both principles of T-CPR with respect to CPR quality.
Design: Randomised controlled single-blinded manikin trial.
Setting: University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, 1 July 2012 to 30 September 2012.
Participants: Sixty laypersons between 18 and 65 years. Medically educated individuals, medical professionals and pregnant women were excluded. Participants were asked to resuscitate a manikin and were randomised into three groups: not dispatcher-assisted (uninstructed) CPR (group 1; U-CPR; n = 20), dispatcher-assisted compression-only CPR (group 2; DACO-CPR; n = 19) and full dispatcher-assisted CPR with rescue ventilation (group 3; DAF-CPR; n = 19).
Main Outcome Measures: Specific parameters of CPR quality [i.e. no-flow-time (NFT) as well as compression and ventilation parameters] were analysed. To compare different groups we used Student's t test and P less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: Initial NFT was lowest in the DACO-CPR group (mean 21.3 ± 14.4%), followed by dispatcher-assisted full CPR (mean 49.1 ± 8.5%) and by unassisted CPR (mean 55.0 ± 12.9%). Initial NFT covering the time of instruction was lower in DACO-CPR (12.1 ± 5.4%) as compared to dispatcher-assisted full CPR (20.7 ± 8.1%). Compression depth was similar in all three groups: 40.6 ± 13.0 mm (unassisted CPR), 41.0 ± 12.2 mm (DACO-CPR) and 38.8 ± 15.8 mm (dispatcher-assisted full CPR). Average compression frequency was highest in the DACO-CPR group (65.2 ± 22.4 min) compared with the unassisted CPR group (35.6 ± 24.2 min) and the dispatcher-assisted full CPR group (44.5 ± 10.8 min). Correct rescue ventilation was given in 3.1 ± 11.1% (unassisted CPR) and 1.6 ± 16.1% (dispatcher-assisted full CPR) of all ventilation attempts.
Conclusion: Best quality of CPR was achieved by DACO-CPR because of superior compression frequencies and reduced NFT. In contrast, the full dispatcher-assisted CPR with a longer initial instructing phase (initial NFT) did not result in enhanced CPR quality or an optimised compression depth.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000432 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!