Does the use of BariBoard™ improve adequacy of chest compressions in morbid obesity? A pilot study using a simulation model.
Aust Crit Care 2021;
35:688-695. [PMID:
34930648 DOI:
10.1016/j.aucc.2021.09.009]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2021] [Revised: 08/18/2021] [Accepted: 09/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Obesity is a growing health problem worldwide. Morbid obesity has been associated with significant barriers to effective thoracic cage compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
OBJECTIVE
The BariBoard™ purports to improve adequacy of chest compressions in morbidly obese patients. This study uses a simulation model to evaluate this.
METHODS
This was a prospective blinded randomised-controlled crossover pilot trial using a simulation model of obesity. Participants, recruited from hospital departments and prehospital services, performed 2 minutes of continuous compressions on mannequins modified to emulate a morbidly obese patient. Participants were randomised by coin toss to a sequence of either control/intervention or intervention/control, with the BariBoard™ in the intervention arm. Accelerometers measured chest wall movement during compressions. The primary endpoint was a composite measure of compression adequacy (rate, depth, and recoil). Secondary endpoints comprised the individual components of the composite outcome, as both dichotomous outcomes (adequate vs. inadequate) and continuous variables. All endpoints were adjusted for potential confounders.
RESULTS
Of 205 participants recruited, 201 were analysed. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome between the control and intervention arms (13.4% vs. 4.5%, respectively, p = 0.001) and between the control and intervention arms for the secondary endpoints of adequate compression depth (31.3% vs. 15.9%, p < 0.001) and recoil (63.7% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders and interactions, there was no difference in overall efficacy (odds ratio: 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.20-1.90, p = 0.40).
CONCLUSION
This pilot study describes the successful assessment of a device using a simulation model of obesity. Within these constraints and after adjustment for confounders, use of the BariBoard ™ did not improve efficacy of chest compressions.
Collapse