Effect of chest compression with kneeling on the bed in clinical situations

2024 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

This is the eighth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research.

The effect of hand and body position on chest compression quality and rescuer fatigue in prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Aim

This study aimed to compare the quality of compressions in supine cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and prone CPR by performing chest compressions on a manikin. Evaluating the effect of prone CPR using different hand and body position on the quality of manual chest compressions and fatigue of participants.

Methods

After completing 2 min of chest compression in the supine position (Supine Group), 25 participants randomly performed three sets of 2-minutes chest compressions on a prone position manikin. Stand + hands overlapped Group: participants stood beside the patient bed with their hands overlapped and placed on the posterior segment of the thoracic spine between the scapulae, Straddle + hands separated Group: participants straddled the patient bed with their hands placed above the scapulae on both sides at the mid-chest level, and Straddle + hands overlapped Group: participants straddled the patient bed with their hands overlapping on the posterior segment of the thoracic spine between the scapulae. Subsequently, the quality of chest compressions and participants fatigue were assessed.

Results

Chest compression depth ratio and mean chest compression depth (MCCD) were worse in the three prone CPR groups (Stand + hands overlapped Group: 0.0(0.0,15.6) %, 39.8 ± 1.3 mm; Straddle + hands separated Group: 1.4(0.0,11.7) %, 42.4 ± 1.2 mm; Straddle + hands overlapped Group: 0.0(0.0,9.2) %, 40.9 ± 1.2 mm) than in the Supine group (87.1(68.1,94.0) %; p < 0.001, 52.4 ± 0.4 mm; p < 0.001). In the three prone CPR groups, Straddle + hands separated Group had the greatest MCCD, lowest changes in heart rate (p = 0.018) and lowest changes in RPE scores (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the four groups in terms of mean chest compression rate, accurate chest compression rate ratio, or correct recoil ratio.

Conclusion

This simulation-based study showed that the quality of chest compressions was worse in the prone position than in the supine position. When prone chest compressions were performed using different hand and body position, prone CPR performed by a participant straddling a hospital bed with hands placed above the scapula on either side at the mid-chest level provided higher-quality chest compressions and lower rescuer fatigue.

Influence of rescuer position and arm angle on chest compression quality: An international multicentric randomized crossover simulation trial

Background

Success in resuscitation depends not only on the timeliness of the maneuvers but also on the quality of chest compressions. Factors such as the rescuer position and arm angle can significantly impact compression quality.

Aim

This study explores the influence of rescuer positioning and arm angle on the quality of chest compressions among healthcare professionals experienced in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Methods

In this international, multicentric, randomized crossover simulation trial with independent groups, healthcare professionals were assigned to one of four positions: kneeling on the floor, standing, standing on a step stool, and kneeling on the bed. Participants performed two 3-minute trials of uninterrupted chest compressions at arm angles of 90° and 105°. Compression quality was assessed, using manikin derived data.

Results

A total of 76 participants entered the study. Those using a 90° arm angle exhibited higher compression scores than those at a 105° angle. Rescuers standing on a step stool maintained higher scores over time when compared to other groups. In contrast, rescuers kneeling on the bed consistently scored below 75% throughout the trial, with particularly low scores at the 105° angle.

Conclusion

Rescuer position and arm angle significantly influence CPR quality, with a 90° arm angle and elevated positioning optimizing compression depth and effectiveness. The results recommend against kneeling on the bed due to its negative impact on chest compression quality.

2024 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

This is the eighth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research.

The optimal surface for delivery of CPR: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To determine the effect of CPR delivery surface (e.g. firm mattress, floor, backboard) on patient outcomes and CPR delivery.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published since 2019 that evaluated the effect of CPR delivery surface in adults and children on patient outcomes and CPR depth (PROSPERO CRD42023467583). We included manikin studies due to a lack of human studies. We identified pre-2019 studies from the 2020 ILCOR evaluation of this topic. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text papers, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Evidence certainty for each outcome was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Where appropriate, we pooled data in a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model.

Results

Database searches identified 489 citations. We included six studies published since 2019. We analysed these studies together with the eleven studies included in the previous ILCOR review. All included studies were manikin randomised controlled trials. Certainty of evidence was low. Interventions including placing the patient on the floor or the use of backboard had minimal impact on achieving greater compression depth. Meta-analyses of floor versus firm hospital mattress or firm home mattress found a mean difference of 5.36 mm (95% CI -1.59 to 12.32) and 2.11 mm (95% CI -3.23 to 7.45) respectively.

Conclusion

The use of a backboard led to a small 2 mm increase in chest compression depth in meta-analysis of multiple mannikin trials. Use of a firm mattress or transitioning to the floor did not affect chest compression depth.

Effectiveness of innovative chest compression on the emergency department stretcher by an alternative method: a randomized controlled crossover trial

Comparison of the three methods standing-on-a-stool (SS), one knee kneeling on a stretcher (KS), and kneeling at the same height as the patient's bed on the kneeling stool (KK) to evaluate the yielded of highest CPR quality and rescuer comfortability. A prospective randomized cross-over study which compares the three different rescuer positions for their effectiveness of chest compression. Conducted at a tertiary care between 19 and 22 Aug 2022. Emergency personnel aged 18 years or older, who completed the AHA-approved BLS course. The chest compression data was obtained by the ALIVE AED manikin® and AED reporting system. The information on the CPR quality and post-test questionnaires assessing the participants' preference, satisfaction and modified Borg's scale score was collected. The three methods shown no statistically significant difference in adequate chest compression depth (percentage). KK was not superior than SS at chest compression rate (P = 0.05). The adequate full chest recoil achieved with KK and KS were significantly higher than that of SS. However, there were no statistical difference between the three methods in the modified Borg's scale score. Based on the satisfying score, the rescuers preferred KK to either SS (p 0.007) or KS (p 0.012). The three methods shown no statistically significant difference in adequate chest compression depth (percentage). Still, both KK and KS provided more adequate chest recoil, so we would recommend using these two methods in the ED.Clinical trial registry: This study was retrospective registration in thaiclinicaltrials.org (TCTR20230119002, 19/1/2023).

Efficacy of in-bed chest compressions depending on provider position during in-hospital cardiac arrest: a controlled manikin study

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the pre-hospital environment, patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest are usually lying in a hospital bed. Interestingly, there are no current recommendations for optimal provider positioning. The present study evaluates in bed chest compression quality in different provider positions during in-hospital-cardiac-arrest.

METHODS

Paramedics conducted four resuscitation scenarios: manikin lying on the floor with provider position kneeling next to the manikin (control group), manikin lying in a hospital bed with the provider kneeling astride, kneeling beside or standing next to the manikin. A resuscitation board was not used according to the current guideline recommendations. Quality of resuscitation, compression depth, compression rate and percentage of compressions with complete chest rebound were recorded. Afterwards, the paramedics were asked about subjective efficiency and fatigue. Data were analyzed using Generalized-Linear-Mixed-Models and, in addition, by non-parametric Friedman test.

RESULTS

A total of 60 participants were recruited. The total quality of chest compressions was significantly higher in floor-based control position compared to the standing (P<.001) and both kneeling positions (P<.05). Also, the compression depth was significantly more guideline compliant in the control (P<.001) and the kneeling position (P<.05) compared to the standing position. The compression frequency as well as the complete chest wall recoil did not differ significantly. The standing position was rated as more fatiguing than the other positions (p≤0.001), kneeling beside as subjectively more efficient than the standing position (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In case of an in-bed resuscitation, high quality chest compressions are possible. Kneeling astride or beside the patient should be preferred because these positions demonstrated a good chest compression quality and were more efficient and less exhausting.

Effectiveness of Lay Bystander Hands-Only Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on a Mattress versus the Floor: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation increases the likelihood of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival by more than two-fold. A common barrier to the prompt initiation of compressions is moving victims to the floor, but compression quality on a "floor" versus a "mattress" has not been tested among lay bystanders.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, cross-over trial comparing lay bystander compression quality using a manikin on a bed versus the floor. Participants included adults without professional health care training. We randomized participants to the order of manikin placement, either on a mattress or on the floor. For both, participants were instructed to perform 2 minutes of chest compressions on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation Simon manikin Gaumard (Gaumard Scientific, Miami, FL). The primary outcome was mean compression depth (cm) over 2 minutes. We fit a linear regression model adjusted for scenario order, age, sex, and body mass index with robust standard errors to account for repeated measures and reported mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Our sample of 80 adults was 66% female with a mean age of 50.5 years (SD 18.2). The mean compression depth on the mattress was 2.9 cm (SD 2.3) and 3.5 cm (SD 2.2) on the floor, a mean difference of 0.58 cm (95% CI 0.18, 0.98). Compression depth fell below the 5 to 6 cm depth recommended by the American Heart Association on both surfaces. In the adjusted model, the mean depth was greater when the manikin was on the floor than the mattress (adjusted mean difference 0.62 cm; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.01), and mean depth was less for females than males (adjusted mean difference -1.42 cm, 95% CI -2.59, -0.25). In addition, the difference in compression depth was larger for female participants (mean difference 0.94 cm; 95% CI 0.54, 1.34) than for male participants (mean difference -0.01 cm; 95% CI -0.80, 0.78), and the interaction was statistically significant (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

The mean compression depth was significantly smaller on the mattress and with female bystanders. Further research is needed to understand the benefit of moving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims to the floor relative to the detrimental effect of delaying chest compressions.

Effect of a backboard on chest compression quality during in-hospital adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomised, single-blind, controlled trial using a manikin model

INTRODUCTION

Chest compression quality during in-hospital resuscitation is often suboptimal on a soft surface. Scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of a backboard is scarce. This single-blinded manikin study evaluated the effect of a backboard on compression depth, rate and chest recoil performed by nurses. Sex, BMI, age and clinical department were considered as potential predictors.

METHODS

Using self-learning, nurses were retrained to achieve a minimal combined compression score at baseline. This combined score consisted of ≥70% compressions with depth 50-60 mm, ≥70% compressions with complete release (≤5mm) and a mean compression rate of 100-120 bpm. Subsequently, nurses were allocated to a backboard or control group and performed a two-minute cardiopulmonary resuscitation test. The main outcome measure was the difference in proportion of participants achieving a combined compression score of ≥70%.

RESULTS

In total 278 nurses were retrained, 158 nurses dropped out and 120 were allocated to the backboard (n = 61) or control group (n = 59). The proportion of participants achieving a combined compression score of ≥70% was not significantly different (p = 0.475) and suboptimal in both groups: backboard group 47.5% (backboard) versus 41.0% (control). Older age (≥51 years) was associated with a lower probability of achieving a combined compression score >70% [OR = 0.133; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.037-0.479; p = 0.002].

CONCLUSION

Using a backboard did not significantly improve compression quality in our study. Important decay of compression skills was observed in both groups, highlighting the importance of frequent retraining, particularly in some age groups.

Effect of chest compression with kneeling on the bed in clinical situations

Aim

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is vital for survival after cardiac arrest, and chest compressions are an important aspect of this. When performing chest compression in a hospital setting, the rescuer often has to kneel on the bed to overcome inconvenient differences in height between the rescuer and the bed. However, as yet no study has evaluated the quality of chest compressions in this position. The aim of this study was to examine the impact on the quality of chest compressions while kneeling on the bed.

Methods

Fifteen female students performed 2‐min chest compressions on a manikin placed on the floor and a bed. Measurement parameters included compression depth, heart rate, integrated electromyogram, and a visual analog scale. The parameters were measured every 30 s and were statistically compared between the conditions.

Results

Compression depth at 30, 60, 90, and 120 s differed significantly between the conditions. Heart rate values at 150 and 210 s of recovery significantly differed between the conditions. Integrated electromyogram values for the trapezius, rectus femoris, and biceps femoris differed between the floor and bed conditions during 2‐min chest compressions, whereas the external oblique muscle significantly differed at 60 and 120 s. Visual analog scales for fatigue, effectiveness, and stability significantly differed between the conditions.

Conclusion

Kneeling on the bed does not enable grounding of the toe, causing the upper body to be unstable and limiting generation of the power required for chest compression. Our results suggest that rotation every minute is necessary to maintain effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation while kneeling on the bed.