PLoS ONE (Jan 2020)

Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model.

  • Bernhard Rössler,
  • Julius Goschin,
  • Mathias Maleczek,
  • Felix Piringer,
  • Rainer Thell,
  • Martina Mittlböck,
  • Karl Schebesta

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228702
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 2
p. e0228702

Abstract

Read online

AIM OF THE STUDY:Bystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do recommend a chest compression (CC)-only algorithm for dispatcher-assisted bystander resuscitation, which may lead to increased fatigue and a loss of compression depth. Consequently, we wanted to test the hypothesis that CCs are more correctly delivered in a flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation algorithm than in a CC-only algorithm. METHODS:With the use of a manikin model, 84 laypersons were randomized to perform either flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation or CC-only resuscitation for 5min. The primary outcome was the total number of CCs. RESULTS:The total number of correct CCs did not significantly differ between the CC-only group and the standard group (63 [±81] vs. 79 [±86]; p = 0.394; 95% CI of difference: 21-53). The total hand-off time was significantly lower in the CC-only group than in the standard BLS group. The relative number of correct CCs (the fraction of the total number of CCs achieving 5-6cm) and the level of exhaustion after BLS did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION:Standard BLS did not lead to an increase in correctly delivered CCs compared to CC-only resuscitation and exhibited significantly more hand-off time. The low rate of CCs in both groups indicates the need for an increased focus on performance during BLS training.