Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock
Home About us Editors Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives Search Instructions Subscribe Advertise Login 
Users online:1163   Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 41-46

Chest compression fraction and factors influencing it

1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala, India
2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Udupi, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Anaesthesia, Amala Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. S Vimal Krishnan
Department of Emergency Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JETS.JETS_36_21

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Chest compression fraction (CCF) is the cumulative time spent providing chest compressions divided by the total time taken for the entire resuscitation. Targeting a CCF of at least 60% is intended to limit interruptions in compressions and maximize coronary perfusion during resuscitation. We aimed to identify the mean CCF and its relationship with various factors affecting it. Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department in cardiac arrest at a single center were prospectively included in this study. Resuscitation was provided by trained health-care providers. The feedback device Cprmeter2™ was placed on the patient's sternum at the beginning of resuscitation. The total time taken for the entire resuscitation was noted by the device and CCF calculated. Results: The mean CCF was analyzed using descriptive statistics and was found to be 71.60% ± 7.52%. The total duration of resuscitation (R = −0.55, P = < 0.001, min-max, 2.02–34.31, mean 12.25 ± 6.54), number of people giving chest compressions (R = −0.48, P = < 0.001, min-max, 1–6, mean 4.04 ± 1.12), and total number of team members in resuscitation (R = −0.50, P = < 0.001, min-max, 4–10, mean 6.65 ± 1.32) had negative correlation with CCF. Diurnal variation (day, n = 35; mean 69.20% ± 7% and night, n = 20; mean 75.80% ± 5.6%, P = 0.001) and patients receiving defibrillation (receiving n = 10 mean 67.00% ± 4.11% and not receiving n = 45 mean 72.62 ± 7.42%, P = 0.005) were found to significantly affect CCF. Conclusion: The mean CCF for cardiac arrest patients was well within the targets of guideline recommendation. CCF decreased when resuscitation lasted longer, during daytime when the defibrillator was used, the total team members increased, and also when the number of people giving chest compressions increased. CCF during resuscitation may improve if there is a focus on improving these factors and requires validation in multicentric settings.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded174    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal