Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Aug 9:19:46.
doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-46.

Decay in chest compression quality due to fatigue is rare during prolonged advanced life support in a manikin model

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Decay in chest compression quality due to fatigue is rare during prolonged advanced life support in a manikin model

Conrad A Bjørshol et al. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to measure chest compression decay during simulated advanced life support (ALS) in a cardiac arrest manikin model.

Methods: 19 paramedic teams, each consisting of three paramedics, performed ALS for 12 minutes with the same paramedic providing all chest compressions. The patient was a resuscitation manikin found in ventricular fibrillation (VF). The first shock terminated the VF and the patient remained in pulseless electrical activity (PEA) throughout the scenario. Average chest compression depth and rate was measured each minute for 12 minutes and divided into three groups based on chest compression quality; good (compression depth ≥ 40 mm, compression rate 100-120/minute for each minute of CPR), bad (initial compression depth < 40 mm, initial compression rate < 100 or > 120/minute) or decay (change from good to bad during the 12 minutes). Changes in no-flow ratio (NFR, defined as the time without chest compressions divided by the total time of the ALS scenario) over time was also measured.

Results: Based on compression depth, 5 (26%), 9 (47%) and 5 (26%) were good, bad and with decay, respectively. Only one paramedic experienced decay within the first two minutes. Based on compression rate, 6 (32%), 6 (32%) and 7 (37%) were good, bad and with decay, respectively. NFR was 22% in both the 1-3 and 4-6 minute periods, respectively, but decreased to 14% in the 7-9 minute period (P = 0.002) and to 10% in the 10-12 minute period (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this simulated cardiac arrest manikin study, only half of the providers achieved guideline recommended compression depth during prolonged ALS. Large inter-individual differences in chest compression quality were already present from the initiation of CPR. Chest compression decay and thereby fatigue within the first two minutes was rare.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of chest compression depth. Boxplot showing the distribution of chest compression depths for each minute during twelve minutes of advanced life support on a manikin (n = 19). Centre line indicates median value, boxes indicate interquartile range and straight lines indicate maximum and minimum values. The circle denotes an outlier.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Development of chest compression depth. Development of chest compression depth for each of 19 resuscitation attempts, the good are illustrated in A (5/19, 26%), the bad in B (9/19, 47%) and those with decay in C (5/19, 26%). Arrows indicate when each paramedic first developed decay in chest compression depth to < 40 mm. See text for definition of groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Development of chest compression rate. Development of chest compression rate for each of 19 resuscitation attempts, the good are illustrated in A (6/19, 32%), the bad in B (6/19, 32%) and those with decay in C (7/19, 37%). Arrows indicate when each paramedic developed decay in chest compression rate to < 100 or > 120 per minute. See text for definition of groups.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Development of no-flow ratio. Development of no-flow ratio measured in three minute periods for all 19 resuscitation attempts.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gallagher EJ, Lombardi G, Gennis P. Effectiveness of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 1995;274:1922–1925. doi: 10.1001/jama.274.24.1922. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Hoeyweghen RJ, Bossaert LL, Mullie A, Calle P, Martens P, Buylaert WA, Delooz H. Quality and efficiency of bystander CPR. Belgian Cerebral Resuscitation Study Group. Resuscitation. 1993;26:47–52. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(93)90162-J. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wik L, Steen PA, Bircher NG. Quality of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation influences outcome after prehospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 1994;28:195–203. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(94)90064-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Koster RW, Baubin MA, Bossaert LL, Caballero A, Cassan P, Castren M, Granja C, Handley AJ, Monsieurs KG, Perkins GD, Raffay V, Sandroni C. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation. 2010;81:1277–1292. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berg RA, Hemphill R, Abella BS, Aufderheide TP, Cave DM, Hazinski MF, Lerner EB, Rea TD, Sayre MR, Swor RA. Part 5: adult basic life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010;122:S685–705. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.970939. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types