• Jui-Yi Tsou, Chia-Lung Kao, Ming-Yuan Hong, Chih-Jan Chang, Fong-Chin Su, and Chih-Hsien Chi.
• Department of Physical Therapy, Fooyin University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Oct 1; 48: 67-72.

BackgroundWe investigated the biomechanics of four external chest compression (ECC) approaches involving different sides of approach and hand placement during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).MethodsA total of 60 participants (30 women and 30 men) with CPR certification performed standard continuous 2-min ECC on a Resusci Anne manikin with real-time feedback in four scenarios: rescuer at the manikin's right side with right hand chest contact (RsRc), rescuer at the manikin's right side with left hand chest contact (RsLc), rescuer at the manikin's left side with left hand chest contact (LsLc), and rescuer at the manikin's left side with right hand chest contact (LsRc). Pressure distribution maps of the palm, peak compression pressure, and compression forces were analysed.ResultsThe participants' mean age, height, and weight was 24.8 ± 4.8 years, 165.8 ± 8.7 cm, and 62.7 ± 13.5 kg, respectively. Of the participants, 58 and 2 were right- and left-handed, respectively. Significant between-scenario differences were observed in ulnar-side palm pressure. Ulnar-radial pressure differences were higher in the LsLc and RsRc groups than in the LsRc and RsLc groups (0.69 ± 0.62 and 0.73 ± 050 kg/cm2 vs. 0.49 ± 0.49 and 0.50 ± 0.59 kg/cm2; respectively; p < 0.05). Ulnar-radial force differences were higher in the LsLc and RsRs groups than in the sLsLc and RsRs groups.ConclusionsThe higher differences in pressure and force under the LsLc and RsRc approaches may lead to higher risks of potential injury. When performing standard-quality ECC, the LsRc and RsLc approaches, in which compression pressure and force are better distributed, may be more suitable than RsRc or LsLc.Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.

17 keywords...

hide…