open access

Vol 5, No 3 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-09-29
Get Citation

Comparison of different chest compression positions for use while wearing CBRN-PPE: a randomized crossover simulation trial

Marek Malysz, Milosz Jaroslaw Jaguszewski, Lukasz Szarpak, Dominika Telecka-Gadek, Karol Bielski, Agata Dabrowska, Jacek Smereka, Krzysztof Jerzy Filipiak
DOI: 10.5603/DEMJ.a2020.0034
·
Disaster Emerg Med J 2020;5(3):127-133.

open access

Vol 5, No 3 (2020)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2020-09-29

Abstract

Background: The prevailing COVID-19 pandemic forces paramedics to take medical rescue operations using personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). The use of PPE-AGP may reduce the effectiveness of the procedures performed, including airway management, intravascular access, or chest compression. The goal of the current study was to compare the quality by which a chest compression during simulated COVID-19 resuscitation while wearing PPE-AGP. A secondary goal was to assess provider preferences with standard versus OHD chest compression methods while wearing PPE-AGP.

Methods: This is a randomized cross-over single-blinded study involving 37 paramedics performing 2-min continuous chest compression using two methods: the standard chest compression (CC) method during which the rescuer takes a position to the side of the victim (STD) and over-the-head position (OHD). During cardiopulmonary resuscitation, study participants wore Class C PPE-AGP. Both the order of study participants and compression methods were random. The results were blinded before statistical analysis. The compression rate per minute (CPM), CC depth as well as full chest recoil were measured. The analysis was undertaken using STATISTICA (V13.3EN).

Results : Mean chest compression depth using distinct CC methods varied and amounted to 42 ± 2mm for STD vs. 46 ± 4mm for OHD (p < 0.001). Chest compressions based on the OHD method were associated with a lower frequency of chest compressions (107 ± 7CPM) compared with STD (114.5 ± 8; p< 0.001). A higher percentage of full chest recoil was observed in the case of STD (42 ± 6%) than in the case of OHD (34 ± 10%).

Conclusions: Based on the current simulation trial, it is impossible to clearly determine which method (STD vs. OHD) is more effective in resuscitation with PPE-AGP. Paramedics wearing PPE-AGP achieved better chest compression depth for OHD compared to the STD, however, OHD resuscitation causes a lower degree of full chest relaxation. A further well-designed clinical study looking at efficacy, safety, and outcomes is needed to confirm current results.

Abstract

Background: The prevailing COVID-19 pandemic forces paramedics to take medical rescue operations using personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). The use of PPE-AGP may reduce the effectiveness of the procedures performed, including airway management, intravascular access, or chest compression. The goal of the current study was to compare the quality by which a chest compression during simulated COVID-19 resuscitation while wearing PPE-AGP. A secondary goal was to assess provider preferences with standard versus OHD chest compression methods while wearing PPE-AGP.

Methods: This is a randomized cross-over single-blinded study involving 37 paramedics performing 2-min continuous chest compression using two methods: the standard chest compression (CC) method during which the rescuer takes a position to the side of the victim (STD) and over-the-head position (OHD). During cardiopulmonary resuscitation, study participants wore Class C PPE-AGP. Both the order of study participants and compression methods were random. The results were blinded before statistical analysis. The compression rate per minute (CPM), CC depth as well as full chest recoil were measured. The analysis was undertaken using STATISTICA (V13.3EN).

Results : Mean chest compression depth using distinct CC methods varied and amounted to 42 ± 2mm for STD vs. 46 ± 4mm for OHD (p < 0.001). Chest compressions based on the OHD method were associated with a lower frequency of chest compressions (107 ± 7CPM) compared with STD (114.5 ± 8; p< 0.001). A higher percentage of full chest recoil was observed in the case of STD (42 ± 6%) than in the case of OHD (34 ± 10%).

Conclusions: Based on the current simulation trial, it is impossible to clearly determine which method (STD vs. OHD) is more effective in resuscitation with PPE-AGP. Paramedics wearing PPE-AGP achieved better chest compression depth for OHD compared to the STD, however, OHD resuscitation causes a lower degree of full chest relaxation. A further well-designed clinical study looking at efficacy, safety, and outcomes is needed to confirm current results.

Get Citation

Keywords

chest compression; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; quality; position; personal protective equipment; CBRN; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; pandemic; medical simulation; manikin

Supp./Additional Files (1)
Supplement 1. CONSORT checklist.
Download
246KB
About this article
Title

Comparison of different chest compression positions for use while wearing CBRN-PPE: a randomized crossover simulation trial

Journal

Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal

Issue

Vol 5, No 3 (2020)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

127-133

Published online

2020-09-29

DOI

10.5603/DEMJ.a2020.0034

Bibliographic record

Disaster Emerg Med J 2020;5(3):127-133.

Keywords

chest compression
cardiopulmonary resuscitation
quality
position
personal protective equipment
CBRN
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
pandemic
medical simulation
manikin

Authors

Marek Malysz
Milosz Jaroslaw Jaguszewski
Lukasz Szarpak
Dominika Telecka-Gadek
Karol Bielski
Agata Dabrowska
Jacek Smereka
Krzysztof Jerzy Filipiak

References (34)
  1. Dzieciatkowski T, Szarpak L, Filipiak KJ, et al. COVID-19 challenge for modern medicine. Cardiol J. 2020; 27(2): 175–183.
  2. Xiao F, Sun J, Xu Y, et al. Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in Feces of Patient with Severe COVID-19. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020; 26(8): 1920–1922.
  3. Vivanti AJ, Vauloup-Fellous C, Prevot S, et al. Transplacental transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Commun. 2020; 11(1): 3572.
  4. Smereka J, Szarpak L, Filipiak K. Modern medicine in COVID-19 era. Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal. 2020.
  5. Pruc M, Golik D, Szarpak L, et al. COVID-19 in healthcare workers. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
  6. Maji C. Modes of transmission of COVID-19 outbreak- a mathematical study. .
  7. Gilliam S. Dual Defibrillation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2016; 51(5): 616–617.
  8. Baldi E, Sechi GM, Mare C, et al. Lombardia CARe Researchers. Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest during the Covid-19 Outbreak in Italy. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383(5): 496–498.
  9. Link MS, Berkow LC, Kudenchuk PJ, et al. Part 7: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2015; 132(18 Suppl 2): S444–S464.
  10. Malysz M, Bielski K, Smereka J, et al. Which technique of chest compression should we use wearing full personal protective equipment: a pilot data. Post N Med. ; 2020.
  11. Smereka J, Szarpak L, Filipiak KJ, et al. Which intravascular access should we use in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19? Resuscitation. 2020; 151: 8–9.
  12. Ludwin K, Bialka S, Czyzewski L, et al. Video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of adult patients with suspected/ confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal. 2020.
  13. Malysz M, Dabrowski M, Böttiger BW, et al. Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial. Cardiol J. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
  14. Chen J, Lu KZ, Yi B, et al. Chest Compression With Personal Protective Equipment During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(14): e3262.
  15. Donoghue AJ, Kou M, Good GL, et al. Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act – Pediatric Trials Network. Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Performance: A Controlled Trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2020; 36(6): 267–273.
  16. de Caen AR, Berg MD, Chameides L, et al. Part 12: Pediatric Advanced Life Support: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (Reprint). Pediatrics. 2015; 136 Suppl 2(18 Suppl 2): S176–S195.
  17. Ashton A, McCluskey A, Gwinnutt CL, et al. Effect of rescuer fatigue on performance of continuous external chest compressions over 3 min. Resuscitation. 2002; 55(2): 151–155.
  18. Abelairas-Gómez C, Barcala-Furelos R, Szarpak Ł, et al. The effect of strength training on quality of prolonged basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Kardiol Pol. 2017; 75(1): 21–27.
  19. Idris AH, Guffey D, Pepe PE, et al. Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators. Chest compression rates and survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med. 2015; 43(4): 840–848.
  20. Zhu Ni, Chen Qi, Jiang Z, et al. A meta-analysis of the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Crit Care. 2019; 23(1): 100.
  21. Neumar RW, Shuster M, Callaway CW, et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2015; 132(18 Suppl 2): S315–S367.
  22. Monsieurs KG, Nolan JP, Bossaert LL, et al. ERC Guidelines 2015 Writing Group. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 1. Executive summary. Resuscitation. 2015; 95: 1–80.
  23. Solevåg AL, Schmölzer GM. Optimal Chest Compression Rate and Compression to Ventilation Ratio in Delivery Room Resuscitation: Evidence from Newborn Piglets and Neonatal Manikins. Front Pediatr. 2017; 5: 3.
  24. Smereka J, Iskrzycki Ł, Makomaska-Szaroszyk E, et al. The effect of chest compression frequency on the quality of resuscitation by lifeguards. A prospective randomized crossover multicenter simulation trial. Cardiol J. 2019; 26(6): 769–776.
  25. Kilgannon JH, Kirchhoff M, Pierce L, et al. Association between chest compression rates and clinical outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest at an academic tertiary hospital. Resuscitation. 2017; 110: 154–161.
  26. Ewy GA, Zuercher M, Hilwig RW, et al. Improved neurological outcome with continuous chest compressions compared with 30:2 compressions-to-ventilations cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a realistic swine model of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2007; 116(22): 2525–2530.
  27. Wang S, Li C, Ji X, et al. Effect of continuous compressions and 30:2 cardiopulmonary resuscitation on global ventilation/perfusion values during resuscitation in a porcine model. Crit Care Med. 2010; 38(10): 2024–2030.
  28. Brown SP, Wang H, Aufderheide TP, et al. ROC Investigators. A randomized trial of continuous versus interrupted chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: rationale for and design of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Continuous Chest Compressions Trial. Am Heart J. 2015; 169(3): 334–341.e5.
  29. Smereka J, Szarpak L, Rodríguez-Núñez A, et al. A randomized comparison of three chest compression techniques and associated hemodynamic effect during infant CPR: A randomized manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2017; 35(10): 1420–1425.
  30. Zhan L, Yang LiJ, Huang Yu, et al. Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non-asphyxial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 3: CD010134.
  31. Liu S, Vaillancourt C, Kasaboski A, et al. Bystander fatigue and CPR quality by older bystanders: a randomized crossover trial comparing continuous chest compressions and 30:2 compressions to ventilations. CJEM. 2016; 18(6): 461–468.
  32. Kovacs A, Vadeboncoeur TF, Stolz U, et al. Chest compression release velocity: Association with survival and favorable neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2015; 92: 107–114.
  33. Considine J, Gazmuri RJ, Perkins GD, et al. Chest compression components (rate, depth, chest wall recoil and leaning): A scoping review. Resuscitation. 2020; 146: 188–202.
  34. Smereka J, Bielski K, Ladny JR, et al. Evaluation of a newly developed infant chest compression technique: A randomized crossover manikin trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(14): e5915.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl