Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 19, 2026
Measurement of Compressive Stress-Strain Response at Small-Strains
Published on: December 5, 2025
Quality between mechanical compression on reducible stretcher versus manual compression on standard stretcher in
Tae Han Kim1, Ki Jeong Hong2, Shin Sang Do3
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Objectives:
Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during vertical transport in small elevators using standard stretcher for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest can raise concerns with diminishing quality. Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher (RS-CPR) that can be shortened in the length was tested to compare the CPR quality with manual CPR on a standard stretcher (SS-CPR).
Methods:
A randomized crossover manikin simulation was designed. Three teams of emergency medical technicians were recruited to perform serial CPR simulations using two different protocols (RS-CPR and SS-CPR) according to a randomization; the first 6 minutes of manual CPR at the scene was identical for both scenarios and two different protocols during vertical transport in a small elevator followed on a basis of cross-over assignment. The LUCAS-2 Chest Compression System (Zolife AB, Lund, Sweden) was used for RS-CPR. CPR quality was measured using a resuscitation manikin (Resusci Anne QCPR, Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) in terms of no flow fraction, compression depth, and rate (median and IQR).
Results:
A total of 42 simulations were analyzed. CPR quality did not differ significantly at the scene. No flow fraction (%) was significantly lower when the stretcher was moving in RS-CPR then SS-CPR (36.0 (33.8-38.7) vs 44.0 (36.8-54.4), P< .01). RS-CPR showed significantly better quality than SS-CPR; 93.2 (50.6-95.6) vs 14.8 (0-20.8) for adequate depth (P< 0.01), and 97.5 (96.6-98.2) vs 68.9(43.4-78.5) for adequate rate (P< .01).
Conclusion:
Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher during vertical transport showed significant improvement in CPR quality in terms of no-flow fraction, compression depth, and rate compared with manual CPR on a standard stretcher.
