首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Two minutes CPR versus five cycles CPR prior to reanalysis of the cardiac rhythm: A prospective,randomized simulator-based trial
Affiliation:2. Department of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy;3. Urology and Sonography Secondary Care Clinic, Azienda Ospedaliera Istituti Clinici di Perfezionamento, Milano, Italy;4. Department of Urology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy;5. Department of Urology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy;11. Biomedical Research Division, Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Università degli Studi dell''Insubria, Busto Arsizio, Italy;12. Faculty of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;1. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil;2. Laboratory of Multidisciplinary Research, São Francisco University, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil;3. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA
Abstract:Aim of the studyWhile the 2005 cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines recommended to provide CPR for five cycles before the next cardiac rhythm check, the current 2010 guideline now recommend to provide CPR for 2 min. Our aim was to compare adherence to both targets in a simulator-based randomized trial.Methods119 teams, consisting of three to four physicians each, were randomized to receive a graphical display of the simplified circular adult BLS algorithm with the instruction to perform CPR for either 2 min or five cycles 30:2. Subsequently teams had to treat a simulated unwitnessed cardiac arrest. Data analysis was performed using video-recordings obtained during simulations. The primary endpoint was adherence, defined as being within ±20% of the instructed target (i.e. 96–144 s in the 2 min teams and 4–6 cycles in the fivex30:2 teams).Results22/62 (35%) of the “two minutes” teams and 48/57 (84%) of the “five × 30:2″ teams provided CPR within a range of ± 20% of their instructed target (P < 0.0001). The median time of CPR prior to rhythm check was 91 s and 87 s, respectively, (P = 0.59) with a significant larger variance (P = 0.023) in the “two minutes” group.ConclusionsThis randomized simulator-based trial found better adherence and less variance to an instruction to continue CPR for five cycles before the next cardiac rhythm check compared to continuing CPR for 2 min. Avoiding temporal targets whenever possible in guidelines relating to stressful events appears advisable.
Keywords:Cardiopulmonary resuscitation  Randomized controlled trial  Guideline adherence  Simulation
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号