• Swee Han Lim, Sze Jet Aw, May Anne Cheong, Jenny Chew, Ai Choo Ler, Li Ping Yong, and Yiong Huak Chan.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. Electronic address: lim.swee.han@singhealth.com.sg.
• Resuscitation. 2016 Jun 1; 103: 82-87.

BackgroundStudies show that after implementation of chest compression only CPR (CCC) in the community, there was an increase in bystander CPR rates and survival of OHCA victims. There have been very few studies to compare the retention rates of CCC and conventional CPR (CVC) in lay people.MethodsFirst year nursing students were randomised into one of the two CPR training methods: CVC - 30 chest compressions, followed by 2 mouth-to-mouth ventilations; and CCC - 100 chest compressions with 10s of rest before the next compression cycle. Within each group, they were sub-randomised into two groups for locating chest compression landmark: 2F - 2 finger-breadth proximal from xiphoid process, identified by tracing the lower margin of the victim's rib cage; or SL - shown the approximate location on the lower half of the sternum. 6 months later, participants underwent an unannounced test to perform one-man CPR on a moulaged mannikin.ResultsDuring the test, CVC groups did significantly fewer chest compressions per minute than CCC groups (57.8±23.7 vs 77.7±24.2, adjusted p<0.001). SL groups compressed significantly deeper than 2F groups (34.3±11.5cm vs 27.3±13.7cm, adjusted p<0.001), and was associated with higher rate of correct landmark for chest compression. 50.0% of the participants did not compress at the correct location. For those who were trained in CVC, only 3.7% were able to perform ≥10 effective ventilations in 5min.ConclusionCCC, with SL as the method to locate landmark for chest compression, should be taught to lay people.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1 keywords...

hide…