• Onur Tezel, Sedat Bilge, and Gökhan Özkan.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Gulhane School of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail. dr.onurtezel@gmail.com.
• Saudi Med J. 2021 Jan 1; 42 (1): 75-81.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacies of various chest compression procedures performed on a stretcher during dynamic transport of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: This prospective and randomized cross-over study used manikins. Practitioners were asked to perform chest compressions on a manikin placed on a moving stretcher for 2 minutes. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)  procedures were included the following 3 types: i) CPR-walking (CPR-W) ii) CPR-straddling (CPR-S), and iii) CPR-mechanical chest compression device (CPR-MCCD). Demographic data of the participants, CPR quality indicators, the time between the start command and first compression, level of difficulty, and the distance covered by the stretcher for the duration of each application were recorded.ResultsThirty-two physicians (9 female, 23 male), participated in this study. The CPR-MCCD procedure was the most effective for all parameters, except the time between the start command and first compression. On the other hand, the compression rate at optimal depth, CPR success score, distance covered, and level of difficulty parameters were significantly favored in the CPR-S group, when compared to the CPR-W group (p less than 0.001, all comparisons).ConclusionsIt is possible to perform high-quality chest compressions during patient transport using the CPR-MCCD method. The CPR-S method allowed practitioners to perform higher-quality chest compressions compared to CPR-W.

16 keywords...

hide…