• Catherine Christman, Rae Jean Hemway, Myra H Wyckoff, and Jeffrey M Perlman.
• Department of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical College, 525 E 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA.
• Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011 Mar 1;96(2):F99-F101.

BackgroundCurrent neonatal guidelines endorse both the two-thumb and the two-finger techniques for performing chest compressions. It remains unclear whether one method is superior to the other in achieving consistent depth.ObjectiveTo compare the compression depth, variability, rate and finger placement of the two-thumb and two-finger techniques using a compression to ventilation (CV) ratio of 3:1.Methods25 subjects (physicians and neonatal nurses) participated with compressions performed on a manikin. Subjects were video recorded. Evaluations included continuous compression administered for 60 s, followed by 2 min of compressions using a 3:1 CV ratio for each of the two techniques.ResultsDepth during 60 s of uninterrupted compressions was greater for the two-thumb than the two-finger technique (27.2±5.7 vs 22.1±4.6 mm; p=0.0008), variability was less (6.7%±3.2% vs 9.0%±2.8%; p=0.002) and rate was comparable (118±22 vs 116±24 compressions/min). With a 3:1 CV ratio, depth was greater for the two-thumb compared to the two-finger method (29±5.4 vs 23.7±5.8 mm; p=0.0009), variability was less (6.1%±2.9% vs 9.8%±3.1%; p=0.00002) and rate was comparable (192±26 vs 197±31 compressions/2 min). Correct positioning was accomplished more often with the two-thumb than the two-finger technique (21/25 vs 3/25; p=0.0005).ConclusionsThe two-thumb technique is superior to the two-finger technique, achieving greater depth and less variability with each compression. The two-finger technique was incorrectly applied in most cases and deviations in technique may have contributed to the significant differences in depth.

15 keywords...

hide…