While the original study showed no difference between CCC and 30:2, when controlled for adherence, an intended CCC strategy had a lower OR for survival (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.81) than a 30:2 strategy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90-1.22) interaction p < 0.01). These numbers show that a CCC strategy is easier to adhere to but also show there is low adherence to either strategy overall. Overall, 54.4% adherence was noted for the CCC strategy (n = 12,276) versus 48.3% for the 30:2 strategy (n = 7,037). Does these data look different when strategies are controlled for adherence to a given compression strategy?Īn automated algorithm devised to detect adherence to chest compression strategy was applied to the 26,810 patients included in the original RCT. However, we know that time off the chest is associated with worse outcomes and is likely what matters most. This was a secondary analysis of a large RCT that showed that a pause in compressions to give 2 rescue breaths (30:2) vs continuous CPR (CCC) with asynchronous breaths made no impact on survival to hospital discharge. ![]() What’s the best way to bump-bump-bump to ‘Stayin’ alive?’ If there is an optimal compression strategy to improve survival, it must be implemented. ![]() ![]() Proper chest compression technique is pounded into our brains because it is likely the most important intervention provided during a code. However, there was significantly less adherence to the 30:2 strategy when compared to CCC. During cardiopulmonary resuscitation, when correctly done, a chest compression strategy of 30 compressions followed by 2 breaths (30:2) was associated with higher survival than continuous chest compressions (CCC).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |