首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >Effects of repetitive or intensified instructions in telephone assisted, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: An investigator-blinded, 4-armed, randomized, factorial simulation trial
【24h】

Effects of repetitive or intensified instructions in telephone assisted, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: An investigator-blinded, 4-armed, randomized, factorial simulation trial

机译:重复或强化指示在电话协助的旁观者心肺复苏中的作用:一项研究者盲法,4臂,随机,析因模拟试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Compression depth is frequently suboptimal in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We investigated effects of intensified wording and/or repetitive target depth instructions on compression depth in telephone-assisted, protocol driven, bystander CPR on a simulation manikin. Methods: Thirty-two volunteers performed 10. min of compression only-CPR in a prospective, investigator-blinded, 4-armed, factorial setting. Participants were randomized either to standard wording ("push down firmly 5. cm"), intensified wording ("it is very important to push down 5. cm every time") or standard or intensified wording repeated every 20. s. Three dispatchers were randomized to give these instructions. Primary outcome was relative compression depth (absolute compression depth minus leaning depth). Secondary outcomes were absolute distance, hands-off times as well as BORG-scale and nine-hole peg test (NHPT), pulse rate and blood pressure to reflect physical exertion. We applied a random effects linear regression model. Results: Relative compression depth was 35 ± 10. mm (standard) versus 31 ± 11. mm (intensified wording) versus 25 ± 8. mm (repeated standard) and 31 ± 14. mm (repeated intensified wording).Adjusted for design, body mass index and female sex, intensified wording and repetition led to decreased compression depth of 13 (95%CI -25to -1) mm (p= 0.04) and 9 (95%CI -21 to 3) mm (p= 0.13), respectively. Secondary outcomes regarding intensified wording showed significant differences for absolute distance (43 ± 2 versus 20 (95%CI 3-37) mm; p= 0.01) and hands-off times (60 ± 40 versus 157 (95%CI 63-251) s; p= 0.04). Conclusion: In protocol driven, telephone-assisted, bystander CPR, intensified wording and/or repetitive target depth instruction will not improve compression depth compared to the standard instruction.
机译:背景:在心肺复苏(CPR)中,按压深度通常次优。我们在模拟人体模型上研究了电话辅助,协议驱动的旁观者CPR中加深措辞和/或重复的目标深度指示对压缩深度的影响。方法:32名志愿者在前瞻性,研究者盲目,四臂,阶乘环境中进行了仅10分钟的CPR压缩。参与者被随机分为标准措辞(“坚决向下推5.厘米”),强化措辞(“每次向下推5.厘米非常重要”)或标准或强化措辞每20 s重复一次。三名调度员被随机分配给这些指示。主要结果是相对压缩深度(绝对压缩深度减去倾斜深度)。次要结果是绝对距离,放手时间以及BORG量表和九孔钉试验(NHPT),脉搏率和血压,以反映体力消耗。我们应用了随机效应线性回归模型。结果:相对压缩深度为35±10 mm(标准)与31±11. mm(增强字)与25±8. mm(重复标准)和31±14. mm(重复增强字)。体重指数和女性,加强用词和重复导致压缩深度降低了13(95%CI -25至-1)mm(p = 0.04)和9(95%CI -21至3)mm(p = 0.13) , 分别。有关强化措辞的次要结果显示,绝对距离(43±2对20(95%CI 3-37)mm; p = 0.01)和放手时间(60±40对157(95%CI 63-251)有显着差异s; p = 0.04)。结论:与标准指令相比,在协议驱动,电话协助,旁观者CPR中,强化措辞和/或重复目标深度指令不会提高压缩深度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号