Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 April;80(4) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 April;80(4):429-35



A Journal on Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Analgesia and Intensive Care

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0375-9393

Online ISSN 1827-1596


Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 April;80(4):429-35


Application of current guidelines for chest compression depth on different surfaces and using feedback devices: a randomized cross-over study

Schober P. 1, Krage R. 1, Lagerburg V. 2, Van Groeningen D. 1, Loer S. A. 1, Schwarte L. A. 1

1 Department of Anesthesiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
2 Department of Medical Physics, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, EJ Eindhoven, The Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Current cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)-guidelines recommend an increased chest compression depth and rate compared to previous guidelines, and the use of automatic feedback devices is encouraged. However, it is unclear whether this compression depth can be maintained at an increased frequency. Moreover, the underlying surface may influence accuracy of feedback devices. We investigated compression depths over time and evaluated the accuracy of a feedback device on different surfaces.
METHODS: Twenty-four volunteers performed four two-minute blocks of CPR targeting at current guideline recommendations on different surfaces (floor, mattress, 2 backboards) on a patient simulator. Participants rested for 2 minutes between blocks. Influences of time and different surfaces on chest compression depth (ANOVA, mean [95% CI]) and accuracy of a feedback device to determine compression depth (Bland-Altman) were assessed.
RESULTS: Mean compression depth did not reach recommended depth and decreased over time during all blocks (first block: from 42 mm [39-46 mm] to 39 mm [37-42 mm]). A two-minute resting period was insufficient to restore compression depth to baseline. No differences in compression depth were observed on different surfaces. The feedback device slightly underestimated compression depth on the floor (bias -3.9 mm), but markedly overestimated on the mattress (bias +12.6 mm). This overestimation was eliminated after correcting compression depth by a second sensor between manikin and mattress.
CONCLUSION: Strategies are needed to improve chest compression depth, and more than two providers should alternate with chest compressions. The underlying surface does not necessarily adversely affect CPR performance but influences accuracy of feedback devices. Accuracy is improved by a second, posterior, sensor.

language: English


top of page