This study aimed to examine the effect of specially designed safety belts on standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality in a manikin and to determine whether straddle (STR) CPR is equivalent to standard CPR in a moving ambulance. Thirty-five emergency medical technicians were recruited and divided into two groups. The first group subjects were randomly assigned to perform standard CPR with or without safety belts. The second group subjects wore safety belts and were randomly assigned to perform STR or standard CPR. Chest compression quality was evaluated by measuring the average rate, depth of compressions, the hands off time and incorrect hand position. The compression rate was significantly higher in the safety belt group (114.0/min vs. 106.5/min, p=0.001), but the compression depth was not significantly different. The hands-off time was also shorter in the safety belt group (24.5 seconds vs. 40 seconds, p=0.003). When STR CPR was performed, the compression depth was significantly deeper (42 mm vs. 36 mm, p=0.004), and the hands off time was shorter (6 seconds vs. 10 seconds, p=0.039) than with standard CPR. A follow-up questionnaire revealed that 65.7% of the respondents had stopped CPR in the past due to safety reasons, and 48.6% had been injured during CPR. Wearing belts in a moving ambulance situation can increase the quality of CPR. If an appropriate belt can be designed, the STR method may be used effectively. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2015;22:145-153).
展开▼
机译：这项研究旨在检查专门设计的安全带对人体模型中标准心肺复苏（CPR）质量的影响，并确定跨骑式（STR）CPR是否等效于移动救护车中的标准CPR。招募了35名紧急医疗技术人员，并分为两组。第一组受试者被随机分配执行有或没有安全带的标准心肺复苏术。第二组受试者系安全带，并被随机分配执行STR或标准CPR。通过测量平均速率，按压深度，放手时间和不正确的手位置来评估胸部按压质量。安全带组的压缩率显着较高（114.0 / min vs. 106.5 / min，p = 0.001），但压缩深度无明显差异。安全带组的放手时间也更短（24.5秒vs. 40秒，p = 0.003）。进行STR CPR时，与标准CPR相比，压缩深度明显更深（42 mm对36 mm，p = 0.004），并且放手时间更短（6秒对10秒，p = 0.039）。一项后续调查表显示，过去有65.7％的受访者出于安全原因停止了心肺复苏术，有48.6％的人在心肺复苏过程中受伤。在移动的救护车情况下系好安全带可以提高心肺复苏的质量。如果可以设计合适的皮带，则可以有效地使用STR方法。 （Hong Kong j.emerg.med.2015; 22：145-153）。
展开▼
