• Paul F J van Berkom, Gerrit Jan Noordergraaf, Gert Jan Scheffer, and Abraham Noordergraaf.
• CPR-Lab, Department of Intensive Care, St Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.
• Resuscitation. 2008 Jul 1;78(1):66-70.

AimFeedback during CPR may facilitate quality in chest compressions, but has also been associated with caregiver complaints such as stiff wrists, the need for more force and increased fatigue. This concern about extra work is, when using the CPREzy with its own spring-loaded surface, particularly relevant in the face of an increased number of successive compressions. This manuscript evaluates the objective workloads for caregivers with and without the CPREzy.Materials And MethodsAn air pressure driven, piston device was used to generate controlled compressions in a manikin model. The pressure was applied for chest compressions with each of the following: the cylindrical end of the piston, a wooden block as dummy for the CPREzy, and the CPREzy itself. Three manikins with subjectively different spring compliances were selected for the tests. Series of 20 compressions were performed over a wide range of pressures.ResultsNo additional force is required to achieve a given depth of compression with or without the CPREzy. However, some additional work is required, ranging from 21 to 26.5%. This work is caused by the longer compression distance associated with the need to compress two springs (e.g. the CPREzy and the chest wall) instead of one (e.g. the chest wall).ConclusionThe subjective feeling of increased rescuer fatigue with the CPREzy can, at least in part, be attributed to the extra work required for compressing the spring of the CPREzy. Improved accuracy in chest compression depth is likely to be another, more significant, factor in rescuer fatigue.

10 keywords...

hide…