Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35875994›Full record

Trial reportPrehospital and disaster medicine2022

Manual versus Mechanical Delivery of High-Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on a River-Based Fire Rescue Boat.

Martin A C Manoukian, Daniel J Tancredi, Matthew T Linvill, Elisabeth H Wynia, Brianna Beaver, John S Rose, Bryn E Mumma

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prehospital and disaster medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Martin A C ManoukianDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis, Sacramento, CaliforniaUSA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3170-986X
Daniel J TancrediDepartment of Pediatrics, UC Davis, Sacramento, CaliforniaUSA.
Matthew T LinvillDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis, Sacramento, CaliforniaUSA.
Elisabeth H WyniaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis, Sacramento, CaliforniaUSA.
Brianna BeaverDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis, Sacramento, CaliforniaUSA.
John S RoseDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis, Sacramento, CaliforniaUSA.
Bryn E MummaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis, Sacramento, CaliforniaUSA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesStudies have demonstrated the efficacy of mechanical devices at delivering high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HQ-CPR) in various transport settings. Herein, this study investigates the efficacy of manual and mechanical HQ-CPR delivery on a fire rescue boat.

methodsA total of 15 active firefighter-paramedics were recruited for a prospective manikin-based trial. Each paramedic performed two minutes manual compression-only CPR while navigating on a river-based fire rescue boat. The boat was piloted in either a stable linear manner or dynamic S-turn manner to simulate obstacle avoidance. For each session of manual HQ-CPR, a session of mechanical HQ-CPR was also performed with a LUCAS 3 (Stryker; Kalamazoo, Michigan USA). A total of 60 sessions were completed. Parameters recorded included compression fraction (CF) and the percentage of compressions with correct depth >5cm (D%), correct rate 100-120 (R%), full release (FR%), and correct hand position (HP%). A composite HQ-CPR score was calculated as follows: ((D% + R% + FR% + HP%)/4) * CF%). Differences in magnitude of change seen in stable versus dynamic navigation within study conditions were evaluated with a Z-score calculation. Difficulty of HQ-CPR delivery was assessed utilizing the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale.

resultsParticipants were mostly male and had a median experience of 20 years. Manual HQ-CPR delivered during stable navigation out-performed manual HQ-CPR delivered during dynamic navigation for composite score and trended towards superiority for FR% and R%. There was no difference seen for any measured variable when comparing mechanical HQ-CPR delivered during stable navigation versus dynamic navigation. Mechanical HQ-CPR out-performed manual HQ-CPR during both stable and dynamic navigation in terms of composite score, FR%, and R%. Z-score calculation demonstrated that manual HQ-CPR delivery was significantly more affected by drive style than mechanical HQ-CPR delivery in terms of composite HQ-CPR score and trended towards significance for FR% and R%. Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion was higher for manual CPR delivered during dynamic sessions than for stable sessions.

conclusionMechanical HQ-CPR delivery is superior to manual HQ-CPR delivery during both stable and dynamic riverine navigation. Whereas manual HQ-CPR delivery was worse during dynamic transportation conditions compared to stable transport conditions, mechanical HQ-CPR delivery was unaffected by drive style. This suggests the utility of routine use of mechanical HQ-CPR devices in the riverine patient transport setting.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestFemaleHumansMaleManikinsProspective StudiesRiversShipscardiac arresthigh-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitationmechanical CPRprehospital careriver-based CPR

Identifiers

PMID35875994
PMCPMC9470525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.