earticle

영어

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the chest compression quality between compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and conventional CPR. Methods: This study involved 123 participants randomly assigned to either the chest compression- only CPR training and conventional CPR training. After training for 120 min, the participants performed CPR for 4 min and the CPR quality was evaluated. The primary outcome was evaluated as the mean compression depth, and the secondary outcome was calculated as the proportion of chest compressions with an appropriate depth among the total chest compressions. Results: The mean compression depth was more deeper in conventional CPR than in compression-only CPR (57mm vs. 53mm, p ＜.001). The proportion of appropriate chest compression depth was also more higher in conventional CPR (98.8% vs. 68.6%, p ＜.001). As compared with every minute over time for a total of 4 min, the mean compression depth and the proportion of appropriate chest compression depth were deeper and higher after 1 min in conventional CPR than in compression-only CPR. Conclusion: The results suggested that conventional CPR is a better method than compression- only CPR in terms of chest compression quality.