BackgroundThe depth of chest compression (CC) during cardiac arrest is associated with patient survival and good neurological outcomes. Previous studies showed that mattress compression can alter the amount of CCs given with adequate depth. We aim to quantify the amount of mattress compressibility on two types of ICU mattresses and explore the effect of memory foam mattress use and a backboard on mattress compression depth and effect of feedback source on effective compression depth.MethodsThe study utilizes a cross-sectional self-control study design. Participants working in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) performed 1 min of CC on a manikin in each of the following four conditions: (i) typical ICU mattress; (ii) typical ICU mattress with a CPR backboard; (iii) memory foam ICU mattress; and (iv) memory foam ICU mattress with a CPR backboard, using two different sources of real-time feedback: (a) external accelerometer sensor device measuring total compression depth and (b) internal light sensor measuring effective compression depth only. CPR quality was concurrently measured by these two devices. The differences of the two measures (mattress compression depth) were summarized and compared using multilevel linear regression models. Effective compression depths with different sources of feedback were compared with a multilevel linear regression model.ResultsThe mean mattress compression depth varied from 24.6 to 47.7 mm, with percentage of depletion from 31.2 to 47.5%. Both use of memory foam mattress (mean difference, MD 11.7 mm, 95%CI 4.8–18.5 mm) and use of backboard (MD 11.6 mm, 95% CI 9.0–14.3 mm) significantly minimized the mattress compressibility. Use of internal light sensor as source of feedback improved effective CC depth by 7–14 mm, compared with external accelerometer sensor.ConclusionUse of a memory foam mattress and CPR backboard minimizes mattress compressibility, but depletion of compression depth is still substantial. A feedback device measuring sternum-to-spine displacement can significantly improve effective compression depth on a mattress.Trial registrationNot applicable. This is a mannequin-based simulation research.
Introduction Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed on a mattress decreases effective chest compression depth. Using a CPR board partially attenuates mattress compressibility. We aimed to determine the effect of a CPR board, a slider transfer board, a CPR board with a slider transfer board, and a flat spine board on chest compression depth with a mannequin placed on an emergency department mattress. Methods The study used a cross-over study design. The CPR-certified healthcare providers performed 2 minutes of compressions on a mannequin in five conditions, an emergency department mattress with: (a) no hard surface, (b) a CPR board, (c) a slider transfer board, (d) a CPR board and slider transfer board, and (e) a flat spine board. Compression depths were measured from two sources for each condition: (a) an internal device measuring sternum-to-spine compression and (b) an external device measuring sternum-to-spine compression plus mattress compression. The difference of the two measures (ie, depleted compression depth) was summarized and compared between conditions. Results A total of 10,203 individual compressions from 10 participants were analyzed. The mean depleted compression depths (percentage depletion) secondary to mattress effect were the following: 23.6 mm (29.7%) on a mattress only, 13.7 mm (19.5%) on a CPR board, 16.9 mm (23.1%) on a slider transfer board, 11.9 mm (17.3%) on a slider transfer board plus backboard, and 10.3 mm (15.4%) on a flat spine board. The differences in percentage depletion across conditions were statistically significant. Conclusion Cardiopulmonary resuscitation providers should use a CPR board and slider transfer board or a flat spine board alone because these conditions are associated with the smallest amount of mattress compressibility.
The publication rate of 22% for abstracts presented at IMSH is low, indicative of the relatively new nature of simulation-based research in healthcare.
Step stool use is associated with improved compression depth regardless of height. Increased provider height is associated with improved compression depth, with visual feedback attenuating the effects of height and step stool use.
ImportanceThe aerosol box has been used during the management of patients with COVID-19 to reduce health care practitioner (HCP) exposure during aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs). Little is known about the effect of aerosol box use on HCP contamination and AGMP procedure time.ObjectiveTo investigate whether use of an aerosol box during AGMPs reduces HCP contamination or influences the time to successful completion and first-pass success rate for endotracheal intubation (ETI) and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis multicenter, simulation-based, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May to December 2021 at tertiary care pediatric hospitals. Participant teams performed 3 simulated patient scenarios: bag-valve-mask ventilation, ETI, and LMA insertion. During the scenarios, aerosols were generated using Glo Germ. Teams of 2 HCPs were randomly assigned to control (no aerosol box) or intervention groups (aerosol box). Statistical analysis was performed from July 2022 to February 2023.InterventionsThe aerosol box (or SplashGuard CG) is a transparent, plastic barrier covering the patient’s head and shoulders with access ports allowing HCPs to manage the airway.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was surface area of contamination (AOC) on participants. Secondary outcomes were time to successful completion and first-pass success rates for ETI and LMA insertion.ResultsA total of 64 teams (128 participants) were enrolled, with data from 61 teams (122 participants) analyzed. Among the 122 participants analyzed, 79 (64.8%) were female and 85 (69.7%) were physicians. Use of an aerosol box was associated with a 77.5% overall decreased AOC to the torso (95% CI, −86.3% to −62.9%; P < .001) and a 60.7% overall decreased AOC to the facial area (95% CI, −75.2% to −37.8%; P < .001) in airway HCPs. There was no statistically significant difference in surface contamination after doffing personal protective equipment between groups. Time to completing ETI was longer in the aerosol box group compared with the control group (mean difference: 10.2 seconds; 95% CI, 0.2 to 20.2 seconds; P = .04), but there was no difference between groups for LMA insertion (mean difference: 2.4 seconds; 95% CI, −8.7 to 13.5 seconds; P = .67).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of aerosol box use in AGMPs, use of an aerosol box reduced contamination deposition on HCPs’ torso and face predoffing; the use of an aerosol box delayed time to successful intubation. These results suggest that the incremental benefits of reduced surface contamination from aerosol box use should be weighed against delayed time to complete intubation, which may negatively affect patient outcome.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04880668
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.