Next Article in Journal
Association between Periodontitis and High Blood Pressure: Results from the Study of Periodontal Health in Almada-Seixal (SoPHiAS)
Previous Article in Journal
Herbal Medicine for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Open AccessArticle

Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Using Wing Boards versus Walking Next to a Moving Stretcher: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study

1
Department of Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3125, Japan
2
Department of Cardiology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3125, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Y.N. and T.S. equally contributed to the manuscript.
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(5), 1584; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051584
Received: 13 March 2020 / Revised: 14 May 2020 / Accepted: 20 May 2020 / Published: 23 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Emergency Medicine)
Background: When a rescuer walks alongside a stretcher and compresses the patient’s chest, the rescuer produces low-quality chest compressions. We hypothesized that a stretcher equipped with wing boards allows for better chest compressions than the conventional method. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, crossover study, we enrolled 45 medical workers and students. They performed hands-on chest compressions to a mannequin on a moving stretcher, while either walking (the walk method) or riding on wings attached to the stretcher (the wing method). The depths of the chest compressions were recorded. The participants’ vital signs were measured before and after the trials. Results: The average compression depth during the wing method (5.40 ± 0.50 cm) was greater than during the walk method (4.85 ± 0.80 cm; p < 0.01). The average compression rates during the two minutes were 215 ± 8 and 217 ± 5 compressions in the walk and wing methods, respectively (p = ns). Changes in blood pressure (14 ± 11 vs. 22 ± 14 mmHg), heart rate (32 ± 13 vs. 58 ± 20 bpm), and modified Borg scale (4 (interquartile range: 2–4) vs. 6 (5–7)) were significantly lower in the wing method cohort compared to the walking cohort (p < 0.01). The rescuer’s size and physique were positively correlated with the chest compression depth during the walk method; however, we found no significant correlation in the wing method. Conclusions: Chest compressions performed on the stretcher while moving using the wing method can produce high-quality chest compressions, especially for rescuers with a smaller size and physique. View Full-Text
Keywords: chest compression; moving stretcher; wing chest compression; moving stretcher; wing
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Nakashima, Y.; Saitoh, T.; Yasui, H.; Ueno, M.; Hotta, K.; Ogawa, T.; Takahashi, Y.; Maekawa, Y.; Yoshino, A. Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Using Wing Boards versus Walking Next to a Moving Stretcher: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1584.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop