• Article

Improved chest recoil using an adhesive glove device for active compression-decompression CPR in a pediatric manikin model

Bibliography

Udassi, J. P., Udassi, S., Lamb, M. A., Lamb, K. E., Theriaque, D. W., Shuster, J. J., ... Haque, I. U. (2009). Improved chest recoil using an adhesive glove device for active compression-decompression CPR in a pediatric manikin model. Resuscitation, 80(10), 1158-1163. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.06.016

OBJECTIVE: We developed an adhesive glove device (AGD) to perform ACD-CPR in pediatric manikins, hypothesizing that AGD-ACD-CPR provides better chest decompression compared to standard (S)-CPR.

DESIGN: Split-plot design randomizing 16 subjects to test four manikin-technique models in a crossover fashion to AGD-ACD-CPR vs. S-CPR. Healthcare providers performed 5min of CPR with 30:2 compression:ventilation ratio in the four manikin models: (1) adolescent; (2) child two-hand; (3) child one-hand; and (4) infant two-thumb.

METHODS: Modified manikins recorded compression pressure (CP), compression depth (CD) and decompression depth (DD). The AGD consisted of a modified oven mitt with an adjustable strap; a Velcro patch was sewn to the palmer aspect. The counter Velcro patch was bonded to the anterior chest wall. For infant CPR, the thumbs of two oven mitts were stitched together with Velcro. Subjects were asked to actively pull up during decompression. Subjects' heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and recovery time (RT) for HR/RR to return to baseline were recorded. Subjects were blinded to data recordings. Data (mean+/-SEM) were analyzed using a two-tailed paired t-test. Significance was defined qualitatively as P< or =0.05.

RESULTS: Mean decompression depth difference was significantly greater with AGD-ACD-CPR compared to S-CPR; 38-75% of subjects achieved chest decompression to or beyond baseline. AGD-ACD-CPR provided 6-12% fewer chest compressions/minute than S-CPR group. There was no significant difference in CD, CP, HR, RR and RT within each group comparing both techniques.

CONCLUSION: A simple, inexpensive glove device for ACD-CPR improved chest decompression with emphasis on active pull in manikins without excessive rescuer fatigue. The clinical implication of fewer compressions/minute in the AGD group needs to be evaluated.