Are chest compression depths measured by the Resusci Anne SkillReporter and CPRmeter the same?

Objective. We investigated whether data collected using the Resusci Anne Skill-Reporter were comparable with those collected using the CPRmeter (cardiopul-monary resuscitation meter -an acceler-ometer feedback device used to provide high-quality chest compressions). Materials and Methods. Fifty continu-ous chest compressions were performed using a Resusci Anne SkillReporter and a CPRmeter under two conditions (Ex-periment 1: complete chest wall recoil; Experiment 2: incomplete chest wall re-coil). The conditions were defined accord-ing to visual feedback signals provided by the CPRmeter. A single healthcare worker performed 20 repetitions under each ex-perimental condition alternately. Chest compression data were collected and ana-lyzed using the Laerdal PC SkillReporting System and QCPR Review software. Results. The mean difference in chest com-pression depth between the Resusci Anne SkillReporter and CPRmeter was 6.7 ± 1.2 mm in Experiment 1 (95% CI: 6.1~7.3) and was significantly higher in Experiment 2 (17.3 ± 1.9 mm; 95% CI: 16.4~18.2; p < 0.001).

Conclusions. The chest compression depth measured by the Resusci Anne Skill-Reporter was significantly different from that of the CPRmeter. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructors, trainees, and re-searchers should be aware of this difference to ensure the most accurate interpretation of their training or experimental results.

cardiopulmonary resuscitation, manikins, feedback, education, training

1. Finn JC, Bhanji F, Lockey A, Monsieurs K, Frengley R, Iwami T, et al. Part 8: Education, implementation, and teams: 2015 Interna-tional Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommenda-tions. Resuscitation 2015;95:e203-24.

2. Oh JH, Kim CW, Kim SE, Lee SJ, Lee DH. Comparison of chest compressions in the standing position beside a bed at knee level and the kneeling position: a non-randomised, single-blind, cross-over trial. Emerg Med J 2014;31:533-5.

3. Centre for Clinical Research and Biostatistics. The Chinese University of Hong Kong: Sample size estimation. [Cited 20 January 2015.] Available from URL http://www2.ccrb.cuhk.edu.hk/stat/Means.htm.

4. Buleon C, Parienti JJ, Halbout L, Arrot X, De Facq Regent H, Chelarescu D, et al. Improvement in chest compression quality using a feedback device (CPRmeter): a simulation randomized crossover study. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31:1457-61.

5. Sainio M, Hellevuo H, Huhtala H, Hoppu S, Eilevstjonn J, Tenhunen J, et al. Effect of mattress and bed frame deflection on real chest compression depth measured with two CPR sensors. Resuscitation 2014;85:840-3.

6. Sugerman NT, Edelson DP, Leary M, Weidman EK, Herzberg DL, Vanden Hoek TL, et al. Rescuer fatigue during actual in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with audiovisual feedback: a prospective multicenter study. Resuscitation 2009;80:981-4.

7. Perkins GD, Kocierz L, Smith SC, McCulloch RA, Davies RP. Compression feedback devices over estimate chest compression depth when performed on a bed. Resuscitation 2009;80:79-82.

8. Oh J, Song Y, Kang B, Kang H, Lim T, Suh Y, et al. The use of dual accelerometers improves measurement of chest compression depth. Resuscitation 2012;83:500-4.