The effect of two different counting methods on the quality of CPR on a manikin—A randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesTo compare the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and rescuers’ exhaustion using different methods of counting, and to establish an appropriate method of counting.Materials and methodsForty-eight subjects who had received formal training in basic life support (BLS) were recruited from doctors and nurses working in the Emergency Department of a university hospital. They performed 3 min of continuous chest compressions using two different methods of counting, one after the other, on an adult resuscitation manikin. The total number of compressions, the number of these considered satisfactory, the peak heart rate of subjects and the time to peak heart rate were all recorded. Perceived fatigue and discomfort was evaluated by self-reported survey results with use of a visual analogue scale (VAS).ResultsThe effective power of external chest compression and the mean compression depth when counting from 1 to 10, repeated three times, were greater than those achieved when counting from 1 to 30 during 3 min of CPR (67.48% vs. 57.81% and 44.52 mm vs. 40.48 mm, P < 0.05). The exhaustion-score using the VAS (22.15 points) was lower and the time to peak heart rate (124.88 s) was longer when counting from 1 to 10, repeated three times, than when rescuers counted from 1 to 30.ConclusionsCounting from 1 to 10 three times in Chinese as opposed to 1–30 results in better quality chest compressions. Counting from 1 to 10 three times was associated with less user feelings of fatigue, and a longer time to peak heart rate. These findings support the teaching of counting compressions 1–10 three times during CPR.