Resusc Plus. 2024 Dec 30;21:100857. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100857. eCollection 2025 Jan.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Life Support Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations states that chest compressions (CC) be performed with the 2-thumb-encircling and if the chest can not be encircled the 2-finger-technique.
AIM: To compare the hemodynamic effects of four different compression methods during CC in a piglet model of infant asphyxia.
METHODS: Nine asphyxiated infant piglets were randomized to CC with 2-thumb-encircling, 2-thumb-, 2-finger-, and one-hand-techniques for one minute at each technique. CC were performed manually while hemodynamic parameters were continuously measured.
RESULTS: Nine infantile piglets (age 5-10 days, weight 2.1-3.0 kg) were included in the study. The 2-thumb-technique and 2-thumb-encircling technique both had a significantly higher mean (SD) ejection fraction of 52.6 (31.2)% and 64.4 (30.6)% compared to the one-hand-technique with 26.6 (15.1)% (p = 0.005). The 2-thumb-encircling technique also had a significantly higher ejection fraction compared to the 2-finger-technique with values of 64.4 (30.6)% and 30.4 (12.1)%, respectively (p = 0.005). Furthermore, 2-thumb-technique and 2-thumb-encircling technique produced significantly higher carotid blood flow and dp/dtmax, and significantly lower dp/dtmin compared to the one-hand- and 2-finger-techniques.
CONCLUSION: The 2-thumb- and 2-thumb-encircling-techniques produced significantly higher ejection fraction, carotid blood flow, and dp/dtmax, and lower dp/dtmin compared to the 2-finger- and one-hand-techniques. Encircling the chest during the 2-thumb-technique produces similar hemodynamic effects compared to the 2-thumb-technique without encircling.
PMID:39868346 | PMC:PMC11757791 | DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100857
