Does use of the CPREzy involve more work than CPR without feedback?

Area of Science:

• Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)
• Biomedical Engineering
• Emergency Medicine

Background:

• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices aim to improve chest compression quality.
• However, these devices can increase rescuer workload and fatigue, particularly with successive compressions.
• The CPREzy device, with its integrated spring-loaded surface, presents a specific case for evaluating added work.

Purpose of the Study:

• To objectively evaluate the workload experienced by caregivers performing chest compressions with and without the CPREzy device.
• To quantify the additional work required when using the CPREzy compared to standard compression techniques.

Main Methods:

• A piston-driven device generated controlled chest compressions on manikins.
• Compressions were performed using the piston directly, a CPREzy dummy, and the CPREzy device.
• Tests were conducted across various pressures and on manikins with different chest compliances.

Main Results:

• No additional force was needed to achieve target compression depth with the CPREzy.
• An increased workload of 21-26.5% was observed when using the CPREzy.
• This extra work is attributed to the need to compress both the CPREzy's spring and the manikin's chest wall.

Conclusions:

• The CPREzy device necessitates additional work during CPR chest compressions, contributing to perceived rescuer fatigue.
• While the extra work is a factor, improved accuracy in compression depth is likely a more significant contributor to rescuer fatigue.