Antje Degel , Shufan Huo , Hans-Christian Mochmann , Jan Breckwoldt
{"title":"Hand vs. leg-heel: Evaluating a viable second line approach for chest compressions to bridge the ‘bystander’s window’","authors":"Antje Degel , Shufan Huo , Hans-Christian Mochmann , Jan Breckwoldt","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>High quality bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) substantially improves outcomes from cardiac arrest. However, chest compression (CC) quality may be impaired in situations of physical incapacitation, low body weight or rescuer fatigue. For such situations, the leg-heel’-approach has been proposed as an alternative. No study, however, has yet explored this method in a standardized setting over a realistic time span, e.g., until professional rescue teams arrive.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In a cross-over design, final year medical students performed continuous CC on a manikin using conventional (C-CPR) and ‘leg-heel’-CPR (LH-CPR) for five minutes each with no pause between methods. Students were randomly assigned to the order of approaches. For the LH-CPR, a chair was provided for the rescuer to stabilize the upper body.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>121 students were included, and all participants completed the whole ten-minute-task.</div><div>Mean absolute CC depth (C-CPR: 49.8 mm [SD 8.7, CI 48.2–51.4] vs. LH-CPR: 49.9 mm [SD 9.4, CI 48.2–51.5], <em>p</em> = 0.974) and mean leaning depth (C-CPR: 10.9 mm [SD 7.4, CI 9.6–12.3] vs. LH-CPR: 10.9 [SD 7.6, CI 9.6–12.3]), were similar, while mean CC frequency was higher in C-CPR (120/min [SD 13, CI 118–123] vs. 113/min [SD 16, 110–116], <em>p</em> < 0.01). With C-CPR, CC rate steadily increased over time up to 125/min whereas with LH-CPR it remained within the guideline target of 100–120/min. Over time, rescuer fatigue was slightly less pronounced in LH-CPR.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>In a standardized setting over a realistic time span, the ‘leg-heel’-approach led to equal CPR quality as the conventional approach. Application of the ‘leg-heel’-approach however, has to be considered with caution as its effects on haemodynamics and resuscitation-related injuries are unknown. Cases should therefore be carefully observed.</div></div><div><h3>Summary</h3><div>This finding may justify developing training algorithms for ‘leg-heel’-CPR as a second line alternative in situations of fatigue, low body weight or physical incapacitation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100891"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425000281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
High quality bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) substantially improves outcomes from cardiac arrest. However, chest compression (CC) quality may be impaired in situations of physical incapacitation, low body weight or rescuer fatigue. For such situations, the leg-heel’-approach has been proposed as an alternative. No study, however, has yet explored this method in a standardized setting over a realistic time span, e.g., until professional rescue teams arrive.
Methods
In a cross-over design, final year medical students performed continuous CC on a manikin using conventional (C-CPR) and ‘leg-heel’-CPR (LH-CPR) for five minutes each with no pause between methods. Students were randomly assigned to the order of approaches. For the LH-CPR, a chair was provided for the rescuer to stabilize the upper body.
Results
121 students were included, and all participants completed the whole ten-minute-task.
Mean absolute CC depth (C-CPR: 49.8 mm [SD 8.7, CI 48.2–51.4] vs. LH-CPR: 49.9 mm [SD 9.4, CI 48.2–51.5], p = 0.974) and mean leaning depth (C-CPR: 10.9 mm [SD 7.4, CI 9.6–12.3] vs. LH-CPR: 10.9 [SD 7.6, CI 9.6–12.3]), were similar, while mean CC frequency was higher in C-CPR (120/min [SD 13, CI 118–123] vs. 113/min [SD 16, 110–116], p < 0.01). With C-CPR, CC rate steadily increased over time up to 125/min whereas with LH-CPR it remained within the guideline target of 100–120/min. Over time, rescuer fatigue was slightly less pronounced in LH-CPR.
Discussion
In a standardized setting over a realistic time span, the ‘leg-heel’-approach led to equal CPR quality as the conventional approach. Application of the ‘leg-heel’-approach however, has to be considered with caution as its effects on haemodynamics and resuscitation-related injuries are unknown. Cases should therefore be carefully observed.
Summary
This finding may justify developing training algorithms for ‘leg-heel’-CPR as a second line alternative in situations of fatigue, low body weight or physical incapacitation.
高质量的旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)可显著改善心脏骤停的预后。然而,在身体失能、低体重或救援人员疲劳的情况下,胸部按压(CC)质量可能会受损。在这种情况下,“腿-脚跟”的方法被提议作为一种替代方法。然而,目前还没有研究在一个标准化的环境中,在一个现实的时间跨度内探索这种方法,例如,直到专业救援队到达。方法在交叉设计中,最后一年级的医学生使用常规(C-CPR)和“腿-脚跟”-CPR (LH-CPR)对人体进行连续的CC,每次5分钟,两种方法之间没有停顿。学生们被随机分配到方法的顺序。在实施LH-CPR时,救援人员会在椅子上固定上半身。结果共纳入121名学生,所有参与者均完成了整个10分钟的任务。平均绝对CC深度(C-CPR: 49.8 mm [SD 8.7, CI 48.2-51.4] vs. LH-CPR: 49.9 mm [SD 9.4, CI 48.2-51.5], p = 0.974)和平均倾斜深度(C-CPR: 10.9 mm [SD 7.4, CI 9.6-12.3] vs. LH-CPR: 10.9 [SD 7.6, CI 9.6-12.3])相似,而C-CPR的平均CC频率更高(120/min [SD 13, CI 118-123] vs. 113/min [SD 16, 110-116], p <;0.01)。使用C-CPR时,CC率随着时间的推移稳步增加至125/min,而使用hl - cpr时,CC率保持在100-120 /min的指导目标范围内。随着时间的推移,在实施低温心肺复苏术时,救援人员的疲劳感稍微不那么明显。在一个标准化的环境中,在一个现实的时间跨度内,“腿-脚跟”方法与传统方法的心肺复苏术质量相同。然而,“腿-脚跟”入路的应用必须谨慎考虑,因为其对血流动力学和复苏相关损伤的影响尚不清楚。因此,应仔细观察病例。这一发现可能证明开发“腿-脚跟”心肺复苏术的训练算法是在疲劳、低体重或身体丧失能力的情况下的二线替代方案。