English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

BACKGROUND: The Lifeline ARM (ARM; De btech, Guilford, USA) is a new mechanical chest compression device. The aim of the current study was to compare the quality of single rescuer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with and without ARM device. METHODS: In this randomized crossover manikin trial forty-four novice physicians participated. Thirty minutes of training was allotted for manual CPR and then for the ARM. The following day, every participant performed a 2-min CPR single rescuer scenario, once with manual CPR and once with the ARM. The primary outcome measure of the study is effective compression; de ned as compressions performed with the correct of depth of 50–60 mm, complete decompressions, and the correct pressure point of CC. RESULTS: The ARM, compared with manual CPR, carried out more effective compressions (96 [interquartile range, IQR; 94–98] vs. 36 [IQR; 33–41]%, p < 0.001). The compressions preformed with the use of the ARM, furthermore, were with a correct CC rate (100 [IQR; 99–101] vs. 130 [IQR; 124–140] min -1 ; p<0.001) and a correct depth (97 [IQR; 96–98] vs. 37 [IQR; 31–39]%; p<0.001). The result of resuscitation with ARM was signi cantly better than manual CPR (p<0.05) for all of the analyzed chest compression parameters (percentage of CC too deep, percentage of CC too shallow, percentage of correct pressure points and percentage of correct pressure releases), as well as for the ventilation parameters (tidal volume, ventilation rate, minute-volume, gastric in ations). CONCLUSION: During this simulated trial, when CPR was performed by novice physicians, the ARM signi cantly improved the quality of CPR. Further clinical trials should provide motivation to con rm the potential bene ts of ARM use during CPR.

disaster and emergency medicine journal

PERFORMANCE OF CHEST COMPRESSIONS WITH THE USE OF THE NEW MECHANICAL CHEST COMPRESSION MACHINE LIFELINE ARM: A RANDOMIZED CROSSOVER MANIKIN STUDY IN NOVICE PHYSICIANS