High-quality chest compressions (CCs) are associated with high survival rates and good neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest patients. The 2015 American Heart Association (AHA; Dallas, Texas USA) Guidelines for Resuscitation defined and recommended high-quality CCs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, CPR providers struggle to achieve high-quality CCs. There is a debate about the use of backboards during CPR in literature. Some studies suggest backboards improve CC quality, whereas others suggest that backboards can cause delays. This is the first study to evaluate all three components of high-quality CCs: compression depth, recoil depth, and rate, at the same time with a high number of subjects. This study evaluated the impact of backboards on CC quality during CPR. The primary outcome was the difference in successful CC rates between two groups.

This was a randomized, controlled, single-blinded study using a high-fidelity mannequin. The successful CC rates, means CC depths, recoil depths, and rates achieved by 6th-grade undergraduate medical students during two minutes of CPR were compared between two randomized groups: an experimental group (backboard present) and a control group (no backboard).

Fifty-one of all 101 subjects (50.5%) were female, and the mean age was 23.9 (SD = 1.01) years. The number and the proportion of successful CCs were significantly higher in the experimental group (34; 66.7%) when compared to the control group (19; 38.0%; P = .0041). The difference in mean values of CC depth, recoil depth, and CC rate was significantly higher in the experiment group.

The results suggest that using a backboard during CPR improves the quality of CCs in accordance with the 2015 AHA Guidelines.

Sanri E, Karacabey S. The impact of backboard placement on chest compression quality: a mannequin study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(2):182–187

The effect of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak on the willingness of laypersons to provide bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) using standard CPR (SCPR) or compression-only CPR (CCPR) was evaluated.The preferred type of SCPR in the post-SARS era was assessed.

A descriptive study was conducted through telephone interviews. Persons who attended a CPR coursefrom January 2000 through February 2003 answered a structured questionnaire. The respondents' willingnessto perform SCPR or CCPR during a witnessed cardiac arrest of an average adult stranger or that of a family member in the pre-SARS and the post-SARS era was surveyed.

Data for 305 respondents were processed. For the scenario of cardiac arrest of an average stranger, more respondents would perform CCPR than SCPR in the pre-SARS era (83.6% vs. 61.3%, p <0.001) and in the post- SARS era (77.4% vs. 28.9%, p <0.001). In the scenario of the cardiac arrest of a family member, more would perform CCPR than SCPR in the pre-SARS era (92.8% vs. 87.2%, p <0.001) and in the post-SARS era (92.8% vs. 84.9%, p <0.001). After SARS, more respondents were unwilling to perform SCPR (p <0.001) and CCPR (p <0.001) on strangers. After SARS, more respondents were unwilling to perform SCPR on a family member (p = 0.039), but there was no difference in the preference to perform CCPR (p = 1.000).

Concerns about SARS adversely affected the willingness of respondents to perform SCPR or CCPRon strangers and to perform SCPR on family members.Compression-only CPR was preferred to SCPR to resuscitate strangers experiencing cardiac arrest after the emergence of SARS.