Comparison of different surfaces in resuscitation quality using a real-time feedback device: A manikin study
Hande Asan1, Erdem Çevik1, Kemal Yıldırım1
1Department of Emergency, University of Health Sciences, Sultan 2. Abdülhamid Han Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Objectives:
Delivering chest compressions (CCs) at the targeted depth and rate is a crucial aspect of maintaining the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Although administering CCs on a firm surface is recommended, it may not always be feasible. This study aimed to determine whether the underlying surface affects CC depth and rate using a real-time feedback device.
Methods:
An observational study was conducted on a manikin (ResusciAnne; Laerdal). 25 volunteer emergency medicine physicians performed 2 min of continuous CCs without feedback on the floor, emergency department stretcher (EDS), and ambulance stretcher (AS). The following day, all participants performed an additional 2 min of CCs while receiving audiovisual real-time feedback (ZOLL M2 series). Compression depths and rates were measured and recorded in a real-time feedback device.
Results:
A total of 150 CC intervals were analyzed. The mean values of compression depths and rates on all surfaces are within the targeted range for high-quality CPR, except for the mean depth without feedback on the EDS (mean: 6.37 cm). There were a statistically significant difference, with both AS and EDS were achieved deeper compressions than those on the floor (P < 0.05). When examining the mean compression depths on three different surfaces with feedback, no statistically significant difference was observed. However, CCs performed without feedback on both AS and EDS were statistically significantly deeper than those on the floor. The mean compression rates both on the floor and the AS were statistically significantly faster compared to EDS. When examining the mean compression rates during CCs performed on three different surfaces with feedback, no statistically significant difference was observed but in the without feedback compressions, both on AS and floor were found to be statistically significantly faster than EDS.
Conclusions:
CC's depth are influenced by the underlying surface. It appears more feasible to minimize surface-related differences while maintaining appropriate targets for depth using real-time feedback devices. The mean compression rate could be kept within the targeted range regardless of the surface.
