Efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance while wearing a powered air-purifying respirator.

BACKGROUND: The use of personal protective equipment for respiratory infection control during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a physical burden to healthcare providers. The duration for which CPR quality according to recommended guidelines can be maintained under these circumstances is important. We investigated whether a 2-min shift was appropriate for chest compression and determined the duration for which chest compression was maintained in accordance with the recommended guidelines while wearing personal protective equipment. METHODS: This prospective crossover simulation study was performed at a single center from September 2020 to October 2020. Five indicators of CPR quality were measured during the first and second sessions of the study period. All participants wore a Level D powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), and the experiment was conducted using a Resusci Anne manikin, which can measure the quality of chest compressions. Each participant conducted two sessions. In Session 1, the sequence of 2 min of chest compressions, followed by a 2-min rest, was repeated twice; in Session 2, the sequence of 1-min chest compressions followed by a 1-min rest was repeated four times. RESULTS: All 34 participants completed the study. The sufficiently deep compression rate was 65.9 ± 31.1% in the 1-min shift group and 61.5 ± 30.5% in the 2-min shift group. The mean compression depth was 52.8 ± 4.3 mm in the 1-min shift group and 51.0 ± 6.1 mm in the 2-min shift group. These two parameters were significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the other values related to CPR quality. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that 1 min of chest compressions with a 1-min rest maintained a better quality of CPR while wearing a PAPR.

Leg-heel chest compression as an alternative for medical professionals in times of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate leg-heel chest compression without previous training as an alternative for medical professionals and its effects on distance to potential aerosol spread during chest compression. METHODS: 20 medical professionals performed standard manual chest compression followed by leg-heel chest compression after a brief instruction on a manikin. We compared percentage of correct chest compression position, percentage of full chest recoil, percentage of correct compression depth, average compression depth, percentage of correct compression rate and average compression rate between both methods. In a second approach, potential aerosol spread during chest compression was visualized. RESULTS: Our data indicate no credible difference between manual and leg-heel compression. The distance to potential aerosol spread could have been increased by leg-heel method. CONCLUSION: Under special circumstances like COVID-19-pandemic, leg-heel chest compression may be an effective alternative without previous training compared to manual chest compression while markedly increasing the distance to the patient.