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.