Resuscitation
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Does Dual Operator CPR help minimize interruptions in chest compressions?
Basic Life Support Guidelines 2005 emphasise the importance of reducing interruptions in chest compressions (no-flow duration) yet at the same time stopped recommending Dual Operator CPR. Dual Operator CPR (where one rescuer does ventilations and one chest compressions) could potentially minimize no-flow duration compared to Single Operator CPR. This study aims to determine if Dual Operator CPR reduces no-flow duration compared to Single Operator CPR. ⋯ Dual Operator CPR with a compression to ventilation rate of 30:2 provides marginal improvement in no-flow duration but CPR quality is otherwise equivalent to Single Operator CPR. There seems little advantage to adding teaching on Dual Operator CPR to lay/trained first responder CPR programs.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Alternating providers during continuous chest compressions for cardiac arrest: every minute or every two minutes?
Studies have shown that the quality of chest compressions for cardiac arrest decreases markedly after only a brief time. This is thought to be an important contributor to an adverse outcome of resuscitation, which has led to recommendations to alternate chest compression providers. This study compared alternating rescuers every 1 min versus every 2 min in a manikin simulation. ⋯ Power calculations with these results show that an unfeasibly large number of scenarios would be needed to definitively demonstrate the superiority of one of the scenarios. It seems reasonable to alternate chest compression providers every 2 min, to prevent the loss of effective compressions due to fatigue and to minimise interruptions of chest compressions. The ideal time to do this would be during the rhythm and pulse check as dictated by current guidelines.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Comparison of two mechanical intraosseous infusion devices: a pilot, randomized crossover trial.
Administration of medications via the intraosseous (IO) route has proven to be a lifesaving procedure in critically ill or injured children. Two mechanical IO infusion devices have been approved for use in children, the spring-loaded IO infusion device (Bone Injection Gun, BIG) and the battery-powered IO infusion drill (EZ-IO). The objective of this pilot study was to compare the success rates for insertion and the ease-of-use of the two devices. ⋯ As tested by paramedic students on a turkey bone model, the EZ-IO demonstrated higher success rates than the BIG and was the preferred device. Future studies are planned to determine which of the two devices is more appropriate for obtaining IO access in the setting of paediatric emergencies.