İshak San1, Burak Bekgöz2, Mehmet Ergin3, Eren Usul4

1Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara City Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
2Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
3Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey
4Department of Emergency Medicine, Emergency Service, Sincan State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Keywords: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality, mechanical chest compression devices, prehospital, resuscitation


OBJECTIVES: Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality.

METHODS: This is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system.

RESULTS: The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%–75% = 117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 102.1–102.7) (P < 0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 mm (IQR: 25%–75% = 32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 mm for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 51.8–55.0) (P < 0.001). The median hands-off time during CPR was 6.9% (IQR: 25–75 = 5.0%–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 8.2%–12.5%) (P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION: During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health-care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.

Ethics Committee Approval

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Non-Interventional Research Ethics Committee, University of Health Sciences (approval number 18/218, Date: 16.10.2018).

Author Contributions

Burak Bekgöz conceived the study and designed the trial. İshak Şan gathered and analyzed the data. Mehmet Ergin and Eren Usul drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision.

Conflict of Interest

None Declared.

Financial Disclosure

None declared.