Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Parenting Styles on Eating Behavior and Caries in Their Children: A Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Time Point of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation on Mortality and Morbidity in Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Single-Center Case Series
Previous Article in Journal
Adolescent and Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis: Which Patients Obtain Good Results with 12 Hours of Cheneau–Toulouse–Munster Nighttime Bracing?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of the First COVID Lockdown on Accident- and Injury-Related Pediatric Intensive Care Admissions in Germany—A Multicenter Study
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

A Comparison between Three Different Techniques Considering Quality Skills, Fatigue and Hand Pain during a Prolonged Infant Resuscitation: A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards

Roberto Barcala-Furelos
Martín Barcala-Furelos
Francisco Cano-Noguera
Martín Otero-Agra
Alejandra Alonso-Calvete
Santiago Martínez-Isasi
Silvia Aranda-García
Sergio López-García
3 and
Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez
REMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, Universidade de Vigo, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain
Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Europea del Atlántico, 39011 Santander, Spain
Faculty of Education, Pontifical University of Salamanca, 37002 Salamanca, Spain
INGESPORT Research Group, Department of Physical Activity and Sports, University of Murcia, 30720 San Javier, Spain
Facultade de Fisioterapia, Universidade de Vigo, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain
Research, Health and Podiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Nursing and Podiatry, Universidade da Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain
National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia, Barcelona University, 08038 Barcelona, Spain
Paediatric Intensive Care, Paediatric Intermediate Care and Palliative Care Units, Department of Paediatrics, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(6), 910;
Submission received: 27 March 2022 / Revised: 25 May 2022 / Accepted: 14 June 2022 / Published: 17 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pediatric Intensive Care – Practice and Research)


The aim of the study was to compare the quality of CPR (Q-CPR), as well as the perceived fatigue and hand pain in a prolonged infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by lifeguards using three different techniques. A randomized crossover simulation study was used to compare three infant CPR techniques: the two-finger technique (TF); the two-thumb encircling technique (TTE) and the two-thumb-fist technique (TTF). 58 professional lifeguards performed three tests in pairs during a 20-min period of CPR. The rescuers performed compressions and ventilations in 15:2 cycles and changed their roles every 2 min. The variables of analysis were CPR quality components, rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and hand pain with numeric rating scale (NRS). All three techniques showed high Q-CPR results (TF: 86 ± 9%/TTE: 88 ± 9%/TTF: 86 ± 16%), and the TTE showed higher values than the TF (p = 0.03). In the RPE analysis, fatigue was not excessive with any of the three techniques (values 20 min between 3.2 for TF, 2.4 in TTE and 2.5 in TTF on a 10-point scale). TF reached a higher value in RPE than TTF in all the intervals analyzed (p < 0.05). In relation to NRS, TF showed significantly higher values than TTE and TTF (NRS minute 20 = TF 4.7 vs. TTE 2.5 & TTF 2.2; p < 0.001). In conclusion, all techniques have been shown to be effective in high-quality infant CPR in a prolonged resuscitation carried out by lifeguards. However, the two-finger technique is less efficient in relation to fatigue and hand pain compared with two-thumb technique (TF vs. TTF, p = 0.01).

1. Introduction

Pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCR) is a rare event [1], but when infant OHCR does occur, drowning is a common cause and is a global public health problem drowning and is a global public health problem [2,3,4] that especially affects toddlers and children aged 0–4 years [5]. Lifeguards usually represent the first line of prevention and intervention in aquatic environments [6,7] and one of their fundamental competencies is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) [7,8,9,10]. Despite this, only the studies by Weber and Moran focused on pediatric CPR applied by lifeguards [11].
In drowning cardiac arrest, systemic hypoxia is the primary factor [12,13], so conventional CPR including ventilations and compressions is the main recommended strategy [13]. The aim of ventilation is to combat hypoxia [14], and the role of compression is to achieve the necessary cerebral and coronary perfusion [15,16].
For the resuscitation of infants, the pediatric section of the European Resuscitation Guidelines 2021 (ERCG2021) [17] recommends the use of the standard two-finger technique (TF) for one rescuer and the two-thumbs encircling technique (TTE) for two rescuers, although it does open the possibility of other techniques as an alternative to traditional methods when resuscitation conditions or fatigue are limiting factors [17]. Ladny et al. have recently proposed a modification of the TTE technique which they have termed “two-thumb-fist” (TTF) [16], which consists of placing the thumbs together and perpendicular at a 90° angle [18] over the lower third of the infant’s thorax, and applying force with the weight of the body. All these recommendations for pediatric CPR are focused on the most common OHCA situations, either assisted by bystanders or medical teams. However, to our knowledge there is still a lack of evidence related to which techniques can optimize the quality of pediatric CPR with less fatigue and minimizing the injurious consequences for the rescuer, especially in particular resuscitation situations (e.g., drowning and isolated locations). Our study arises from the belief that current infant CPR techniques can be improved [16] and therefore should be studied and analyzed for each context according to the location where the cardiac arrest occurs (e.g., aquatic environments), the type of rescuer (lifeguards) and the resuscitation time (i.e., prolonged).
The objective of this study is to compare three pediatric resuscitation techniques in a lifeguard-assisted out-of-hospital aquatic setting over a prolonged period of time, to determine the quality of resuscitation as well as the perceived fatigue and hand pain of the rescuers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A randomized crossover manikin study was performed to compare the recommended pediatric CPR techniques [17]: two-finger (TF) and two-thumb encircling (TTE) and the new 2-thumb-fist technique (TTF) (Figure 1).

2.2. Participants

This study involved a sample of 58 professional lifeguards from 3 Spanish cities (Pontevedra, Santander and Murcia). 40% (n = 23) were female and 60% (n = 35) were male.
The sample size was based on an assumed minimum of effect size (ES) of 0.25, and error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.80. These assumptions provided a sample size of 28 study participants computed by G*Power software (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany). The final sample was 58 participants, giving a statistical power of 0.99 assuming the effect size and error probability parameters described above. Their mean age was 27 ± 10 years old, their weight was 70 ± 12 kg and their height was 172 ± 9 cm. All participants were informed about the study and gave their written informed consent. The research respected the Helsinki Declaration and the study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University School of Education and Sport Sciences of the University of Vigo, number 03–0121, date: 18 January 2021.

2.3. Study Protocol

The details can be seen in Figure 2.

2.3.1. Step 1 Roller Refresher

Prior to the study, the rescuers received a one-hour training refresher course given by three instructors who are experts in pediatric CPR. All participants were familiarized with the three techniques, with their partner in the resuscitation team and with the manikin on which the tests would be performed.

2.3.2. Step 2 CPR Trial

Each team of rescuers (pair of lifeguards) performed 3 resuscitation tests of 20 min on an infant manikin. The order of the three tests was randomized. To avoid the effect of fatigue, each test was performed 24 h apart. Each team of rescuers (2 lifeguards) followed the sequence as recommended by ERCG2021 [17] for trained responders: After the first 5 rescue breaths, the team followed the sequence of 15 chest compressions (CC) and 2 ventilations (V). One lifeguard performed CC with the randomized technique while the other rescuer delivered V with an infant-size bag-valve-mask (Laerdal. Stavanger, Norway). Every 8 cycles (approximately 2 min) the roles were exchanged between rescuers. The total test time was 20 min.

2.4. Variables

2.4.1. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Variables

Quality parameters were evaluated and disaggregated into Quality of CC (Q-CC), Quality of V (Q-V) and overall CPR Quality (Q-CPR). Each variable was expressed as a percentage and its calculation is based on the following formulas published in previous studies [19]: Q-CPR = [(Q-CC + Q-V) ÷ 2], Q-CC, calculated using the formula; Q-CC = [%CC with adequate depth + %CC with correct chest recoil + %CC with adequate rate (100–120 CC per minute) ÷ 3] and Q-V = V-C ÷ Number of V × 100. Quantitatively, the number of CC and number of V performed during each test were also recorded.
For data analysis, a Laerdal Little Baby QCPR (Stavanger, Norway) manikin () was used, with the Laerdal Instructor App (Stavanger, Norway) configured according to the ERCG2021 [17]. This model corresponds to a baby of 3 months and approximately 5.5 kg.

2.4.2. Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) Parameters

At the perceptual level, the modified rating of perceived effort (RPE) [20] was recorded (measurement of the range 0/10—rest/maximal). Previously, the lifeguards were trained in the knowledge and use of this scale. The RPE was measured individually at five different time points: minute 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min into the test.

2.4.3. Hand Pain during CPR

Hand pain was measured using a Numeric rating scale (NRS) whose values range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) [21,22]. NRS is a scale that is easy to interpret, is intuitive and meets the reliability requirements for pain assessment [22]. The hand pain was also measured individually at five different time points: minute 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 into the test.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics v.20 for Windows (Armonk, NY, USA). To describe the categorical variable (sex), absolute and relative frequencies were used. To describe the continuous variables of the study, measures of central tendency (mean), dispersion (standard deviation) and confidence estimators (95% confidence intervals) were used. The normality of the distributions was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests as appropriate and, depending on the results of these analyses, parametric or nonparametric tests were performed. In the parametric analyses, the ANOVA repeated measures test was used and in the nonparametric analyses the Friedman repeated measures test with Bonferroni correction in pairs comparisons was used. For significant comparisons, the effect size (ES) was also calculated with the Rosenthal test. For the interpretation of ES, Cohen’s recommendations were followed: (<0.2: trivial; 0.2–0.5: small; 0.5–0.8: medium; 0.8–1.3: large; >1.3: very large) A significance level of 0.05 was assigned.

3. Results

The results are based on an analysis of 87 tests, comprising 1740 min of CPR. All the overall results can be seen in Figure 3.

3.1. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Variables

The results of the CPR tests are shown in Table 1. All techniques obtained high Q-CPR values (TF: 86 ± 9%, TTE: 88 ± 9%/TTF: 86 ± 16%). TTE was statistically superior to TF (TTE vs. TF; p = 0.03) although the 2% improvement is not of particular clinical relevance. No differences were found between the techniques in the quality of chest compressions or in the quality of ventilations, with values above 80% in all cases. The quantitative variables of number of CC and number of V were similar, without any statistical significance.

3.2. Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

The RPE results are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. In the intragroup analysis, the significant increase in RPE occurs progressively in all techniques at each control point, compared with baseline state (minute 0). No statistical significance was found in any technique in the intragroup comparison between minutes 15 and 20 (p > 0.05). In the comparison of the techniques (intergroup) in each of the sections, statistically significant differences were found between TF and TTF. The TF technique generated a higher RPE from min 5 to min 20 (min 5 p = 0.003, min 10 p < 0.001, min 15 p = 0.02, min 20 p = 0.01).

3.3. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Hand Pain

The results of hand pain are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3.
In the intragroup analysis, the significant increase in NRS occurred in all three techniques analyzed at each control point (p < 0.05); in the comparison of the techniques (intergroup) significantly higher values of hand pain were observed throughout the test when using TF compared to TTE (min 0 vs. 5: p = 0.007, min 5 vs. 10: < 0.001, min 10 vs. 15: p < 0.001 and min 15 vs. 20: p < 0.001) and with TTF (p < 0.001 for all intervals). The ES value was medium (0.5 to <0.8) in the comparison of TF with TTE while from min 5 onwards it was large (0.8 to <1.3) in the TF and TTF comparison.

4. Discussion

This study was to assess the quality of resuscitation, the perceived fatigue and the hand pain with three pediatric CPR techniques in an aquatic environment assisted by lifeguards. The main findings were: (a) the rescuers are able to maintain a high quality of CPR regardless of the technique employed, (b) perceived fatigue is low in all three techniques, although slightly higher in TF and (c) hand pain using the TF technique is moderate compared to TTE and TTF which was mild.
Survival from pediatric cardiac arrest and a favorable neurological outcome is associated with the duration of CPR [23], as well as witnessed cardiac arrest Delivery of high quality CPR is likely to be another major factor [24]. Therefore, the analysis of the different methods of providing CC in infants has two important challenges; the first one achieving and maintaining high quality CPR without developing fatigue.
Traditionally the TF technique has been recommended when there is only one rescuer [17] and one of the main reasons is to minimize the no-flow time [25], although the time saved compared to TTE is just over half a second [26] and it could be further reduced if two rescuers are carrying out the resuscitation. On the other hand, TTE is recommended when CPR is performed by at least two trained first responders [17], although some studies consider it superior even if performed individually [26,27,28]. One of the main strengths of TTE is the improvement in the depth of CC [26,27,28,29,30,31] compared to TF. This is something that the new TTF method developed by Ladny et al. and Smereka et al. has also achieved [16,18], with the placement of the thumbs at 90°. However there is no superiority in either quality or depth between the methods using the two thumbs TTE or the TTF [32,33]. In our study, we analyzed the Q-CPR in a comprehensive manner. All three techniques achieved values above 85% with no statistically significant differences between groups. The quantification of good CPR in a simulation with manikins has been arbitrarily assumed to be equal to or higher than a value of 70% [34]. One possible explanation is that rescuers have comprehensive training which includes endurance and strength capabilities [35], and their work also specifically requires training in both the lower and upper limbs (including hand muscles), in addition to good physical health to allow CPR to be performed [36] even to allow CPR to be performed under conditions of previous fatigue [8].
One of the analysis points was to find out the intensity of the fatigue and if there were any differences in the technique used. Our findings showed low intensity fatigue (between light and moderate) with no differences between the ways of providing CC. The study by Reynols et al. [37] also found no differences between the techniques analyzed (TT vs. TTE) during 5-min of CPR, but did assume a higher intensity of “hard” fatigue for TT and “somewhat hard” i.e., hard for TTE. Jung et al. did find high fatigue values during a 5-min test with a single-rescuer, especially in the TF technique [38]. Possibly the most relevant difference is the time during which CC is performed without without changing rescuers and it seems that fatigue is also related to the type of victim and increases with greater size [37].
Santos-Folgar et al. analyzed the anatomical area of the upper limb with the greatest fatigue to during 10-min of CPR with the TF technique and found that the only point where fatigue was high was the area between the fingers and the palm of the hand (8 points out of 10) [39]. The Santos-Folgar’s study used the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) as a fatigue assessment tool. The most common use of this scale is the assessment of pain and the population studied was nursing students, which could perhaps be a confounding bias with fatigue. For this reason, pain was included as a variable using the NRS as a tool because of its better sensitivity [21] in addition to being one of the most widely used scales [40]. As expected, TF resulted in significantly higher pain, which at the end of the test was an increase of 25% compared to the other two techniques. These results are in agreement with previous studies that found the hand to be the least comfortable place during TF [28,38]. The use of the body weight on the fingers in TTF or the pressure of the two hands encircling the infant’s thorax using the anatomical gripper with the thumbs in TTE seems more efficient. Moreover, there is greater involvement of larger muscles or powerful kinetic chains compared to TF whose compression force is lower [29] since it is projected exclusively from the wrist to the two fingers as well as in a smaller contact area [38].
Indeed one of the practical implications of this study is to understand the effects of prolonged pediatric CPR and to optimize it in order to offer the most comfortable alternatives to rescuers, who often operate in remote locations with scarce resources. “Pain cannot be treated if it cannot be assessed” [22] and applied to this study, TTE or TTF would be the preferred choice. The current results should encourage lifeguard organizations to explore these different techniques within their protocols and incorporate fatigue and pain assessment scales to promote best professional practice in the safest, most efficient manner and to avoid injuries that may detract from lifeguard service.

Limitations of the Study

This study has limitations that should be pointed out. First, it is a simulation study with physically fit rescuers in a controlled context; therefore, in a real situation, with a different first responder profile and in a different resuscitation environment, the results may be different. In this study, not all variables which determine the quality of CPR were collected by an APP software limitation, especially the depth of compression in millimeters, so results must be construed with this important restriction. Another limitation for understand the results was the manikin represents a three-month-old baby. This study should be tested with older and larger toddlers. The limited sample of this study is another important limitation, so further research is needed in order to validate the results obtained. The strength of this study is the novelty and relevance of the topic, as well as the limited evidence in this context. Simulation-based analysis with manikins is useful when the possibility of analysis in situations with real patients has not existed so far.

5. Conclusions

All techniques have been shown to be effective in high-quality infant CPR during a prolonged resuscitation provided by lifeguards. However, the two-finger technique is less efficient in relation to rescuers comfort with high fatigue and hand pain compared to two-thumb techniques (TTE and TTF). This study supports the recommendation that the traditional two-finger technique in the context of prolonged resuscitations should not be the preferred option when there is more than one rescuer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.B.-F., M.B.-F., M.O.-A., A.A.-C., S.M.-I., S.A.-G., S.L.-G. and A.R.-N.; Data curation, F.C.-N. and A.R.-N.; Formal analysis, R.B.-F., M.O.-A., A.A.-C. and S.M.-I.; Investigation, M.B.-F., A.A.-C., S.M.-I., S.A.-G. and S.L.-G.; Methodology, R.B.-F. and M.O.-A.; Resources, M.B.-F. and F.C.-N.; Supervision, S.A.-G.; Validation, M.O.-A.; Writing—original draft, R.B.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University School of Education and Sport Sciences of the University of Vigo (number 03-0121, date: 18 January 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Lee, J.; Yang, W.-C.; Lee, E.-P.; Huang, J.-L.; Hsiao, H.-J.; Lin, M.-J.; Wu, H.-P. Clinical survey and predictors of outcomes of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest admitted to the emergency department. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. World Health Organization. Preventing Drowning: An Implementation Guide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; p. 105.
  3. Wu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Schwebel, D.C.; Hu, G. Unintentional child and adolescent drowning mortality from 2000 to 2013 in 21 countries: Analysis of the WHO mortality database. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Global Report on Drowning: Preventing a Leading Killer. Australian Policy Online 2014. Available online: (accessed on 6 December 2014).
  5. UNICEF; World Health Organization. World Report on Child Injury Prevention; Peden, M.M., Oyegbite, K., Ozanne-Smith, J., Hyder, A.A., Branche, C., Rahman, A.K.M.F., Rivara, F., Bartolomeos, K., Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; 211p.
  6. Barcala-Furelos, R.; Aranda-García, S.; Abelairas-Gómez, C.; Martínez-Isasi, S.; López-Mesa, F.; Oleagordia-Aguirre, A.; Palacios-Aguilar, J.; Szpilman, D. Occupational health recommendations for lifeguards in aquatic emergencies in the Covid-19 era: Prevention, rescue and resuscitation. Revista Espanola Salud Publica 2020, 94, e202006074. [Google Scholar]
  7. Li, S.; Kan, T.; Guo, Z.; Chen, C.; Gui, L. Assessing the quality of CPR performed by a single lifeguard, two lifeguards and a lifeguard with a bystander after water rescue: A quasi-experimental trial. Emerg. Med. J. 2020, 37, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barcala-Furelos, R.; Szpilman, D.; Palacios-Aguilar, J.; Costas-Veiga, J.; Gómez, C.A.; Bores-Cerezal, A.; López-García, S.; Rodriguez-Nunez, A. Assessing the efficacy of rescue equipment in lifeguard resuscitation efforts for drowning. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2015, 34, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Szpilman, D.; Tipton, M.; Sempsrott, J.; Webber, J.; Bierens, J.; Dawes, P.; Seabra, R.; Barcala-Furelos, R.; Queiroga, A.C. Drowning timeline: A new systematic model of the drowning process. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2016, 34, 2224–2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Faddy, S.C. Towards new models of cardiopulmonary resuscitation teaching: The role of practical scenario training on surf lifesavers’ perceptions of resuscitation efficacy. Resuscitation 2002, 53, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Webber, J.; Moran, K.; Cumin, D. Paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Knowledge and perceptions of surf lifeguards. J. Paediatr. Child Health 2018, 55, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Szpilman, D.; Bierens, J.J.; Handley, A.J.; Orlowski, J.P. Drowning. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 2102–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bierens, J.; Abelairas-Gomez, C.; Furelos, R.B.; Beerman, S.; Claesson, A.; Dunne, C.; Elsenga, H.; Morgan, P.; Mecrow, T.; Pereira, J.; et al. Resuscitation and emergency care in drowning: A scoping review. Resuscitation 2021, 162, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Szpilman, D.; Soares, M. In-water resuscitation—Is it worthwhile? Resuscitation 2004, 63, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Saini, S.S.; Gupta, N.; Kumar, P.; Bhalla, A.K.; Kaur, H. A comparison of two-fingers technique and two-thumbs encircling hands technique of chest compression in neonates. J. Perinatol. 2011, 32, 690–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Ladny, J.R.; Smereka, J.; Rodríguez-Núñez, A.; Leung, S.; Ruetzler, K.; Szarpak, L. Is there any alternative to standard chest compression techniques in infants? A randomized manikin trial of the new “2-thumb-fist” option. Medicine 2018, 97, e9386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Van de Voorde, P.; Turner, N.M.; Djakow, J.; de Lucas, N.; Martinez-Mejias, A.; Biarent, D.; Bingham, R.; Brissaud, O.; Hoffmann, F.; Johannesdottir, G.B.; et al. European resuscitation council guidelines 2021: Paediatric life support. Resuscitation 2021, 161, 327–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Smereka, J.; Szarpak, L.; Smereka, A.; Leung, S.; Ruetzler, K. Evaluation of new two-thumb chest compression technique for infant CPR performed by novice physicians. A randomized, crossover, manikin trial. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2017, 35, 604–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Barcala-Furelos, R.; Abelairas-Gomez, C.; Aranda-García, S.; Lorenzo-Martínez, M.; Martinez-Isasi, S.; Durán-Álvarez, C.; Palacios-Aguilar, J.; Rodríguez-Núñez, A. Is it feasible “scoop and run while playing” resuscitation on a rescue water craft? A randomized simulation study with lifeguards. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 38, 618–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Foster, C.; Florhaug, J.A.; Franklin, J.; Gottschall, L.; Hrovatin, L.A.; Parker, S.; Doleshal, P.; Dodge, C. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2001, 15, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  21. Williamson, A.; Hoggart, B. Pain: A review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J. Clin. Nurs. 2005, 14, 798–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Karcioglu, O.; Topacoglu, H.; Dikme, O.; Dikme, O. A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use? Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 36, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. López-Herce, J.; García, C.; Dominguez-Sampedro, P.; Rodriguez-Nunez, A.; Carrillo, A.; Calvo, C.; Delgado, M.A. Spanish study group of cardiopulmonary arrest in children outcome of out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest in children. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2005, 21, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Sahu, S.; Kishore, K.; Lata, I. Better outcome after pediatric resuscitation is still a dilemma. J. Emerg. Trauma Shock 2010, 3, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ruetzler, K.; Smereka, J.; Szarpak, L.; Czekajlo, M. Novel method of infant chest compression. Does the arrangement of the thumbs matter? Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 769–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Udassi, S.; Udassi, J.P.; Lamb, M.A.; Theriaque, D.W.; Shuster, J.J.; Zaritsky, A.L.; Haque, I.U. Two-thumb technique is superior to two-finger technique during lone rescuer infant manikin CPR. Resuscitation 2010, 81, 712–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, J.E.; Lee, J.; Oh, J.; Park, C.H.; Kang, H.; Lim, T.H.; Yoo, K.H. Comparison of two-thumb encircling and two-finger technique during infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation with single rescuer in simulation studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e17853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pellegrino, J.L.; Bogumil, D.; Epstein, J.L.; Burke, R.V. Two-thumb-encircling advantageous for lay responder infant CPR: A randomised manikin study. Arch. Dis. Child. 2018, 104, 530–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Tsou, J.-Y.; Kao, C.-L.; Chang, C.-J.; Tu, Y.-F.; Su, F.-C.; Chi, C.-H. Biomechanics of two-thumb versus two-finger chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an infant manikin model. Eur. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 27, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chang, C.-Y.; Lin, P.-C.; Chien, Y.-J.; Chen, C.-S.; Wu, M.-Y. Analysis of chest-compression depth and full recoil in two infant chest-compression techniques performed by a single rescuer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chang, C.Y.; Hou, Y.T.; Chien, Y.J.; Chen, Y.L.; Lin, P.C.; Chen, C.S.; Wu, M.Y. Two-thumb or two-finger technique in infant cardio-pulmonary resuscitation by a single rescuer? A meta-analysis with GOSH analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rodriguez-Ruiz, E.; Martín, V.G.; Abelairas-Gómez, C.; Vidal, F.S.; González, C.G.; Barcala-Furelos, R.; Rodríguez-Nuñez, A. A new chest compression technique in infants. Med. Intensiv. (Engl. Ed.) 2019, 43, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rodriguez-Ruiz, E.; Martínez-Puga, A.; Carballo-Fazanes, A.; Abelairas-Gómez, C.; Rodríguez-Nuñez, A. Two new chest compression methods might challenge the standard in a simulated infant model. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2019, 178, 1529–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Perkins, G.D.; Colquhoun, M.; Simons, R. ABC of Resuscitation, 5th ed.; BMJ Books: London, UK, 2004; pp. 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  35. Reilly, T.; Wooler, A.; Tipton, M. Occupational fitness standards for beach lifeguards. Phase 1: The physiological demands of beach lifeguarding. Occup. Med. 2005, 56, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. López-García, S.; Ruibal-Lista, B.; Palacios-Aguilar, J.; Santiago-Alonso, M.; Prieto, J. Relationship between the performance in a maximum effort test for lifeguards and the time spent in a water rescue. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Reynolds, C.; Cox, J.; Livingstone, V.; Dempsey, E.M. Rescuer exertion and fatigue using two-thumb vs. two-finger method during simulated neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Front. Pediatr. 2020, 8, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Santos-Folgar, M.; Otero-Agra, M.; Prada-Pérez, A.; Barcala-Furelos, R.; Rodríguez-Núñez, A.; Fernández-Méndez, F. Fatigue during infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Is it really a problem for quality performance? Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2021, 37, e278–e279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jung, W.J.; Hwang, S.O.; Kim, H.I.; Cha, Y.S.; Kim, O.H.; Kim, H.; Lee, K.H.; Cha, K.-C. ‘Knocking-fingers’ chest compression technique in infant cardiac arrest: Single-rescuer manikin study. Eur. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 26, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hamdan, K.M. Nurses’ assessment practices of pain among critically Ill patients. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2019, 20, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (1) Two-finger technique, (2) two-thumb encircling, (3) two-thumb-fist.
Figure 1. (1) Two-finger technique, (2) two-thumb encircling, (3) two-thumb-fist.
Children 09 00910 g001
Figure 2. Flow chart design and assessment tools.
Figure 2. Flow chart design and assessment tools.
Children 09 00910 g002
Figure 3. Chart of the results.
Figure 3. Chart of the results.
Children 09 00910 g003
Table 1. Results of CPR test (n = 29 pairs).
Table 1. Results of CPR test (n = 29 pairs).
VariablesTFTTETTFFriedman or ANOVA Test
(p = 0.05)
(In Brackets) Effect Size with
Rosenthal Test
Mean (SD)CI (95%)Mean (SD)CI (95%)Mean (SD)CI (95%)
Q-CPR (%)86 (9)[82–89]88 (9)[84–91]86 (16)[80–92]TF vs. TTE = 0.03
(ES 0.23)
Q-CC (%)85 (11)[81–89]88 (9)[84–91]88 (9)[85–92]NS
Q-V (%)86 (12)[76–90]86 (13)[82–91]82 (23)[73–91]NS
CC1438 (155)[1379–1496]1437 (104)[1398–1477]1442 (131)[1392–1491]NS
V197 (21)[189–205]197 (14)[191–202]197 (17)[191–204]NS
TF: two-finger, TTE: two-thumb, TTF: two-thumb-fist Q-CC: Quality of chest compressions; Q-CPR: CPR global quality; Q-V: Quality of ventilations; CC: Number of chest compression; V: Number of ventilations. SD: Standard deviation, CI: 95% Confidence intervals, NS: Not significance.
Table 2. Results of Rating of Perceive Exertion (RPE). (n = 56; 2 missed).
Table 2. Results of Rating of Perceive Exertion (RPE). (n = 56; 2 missed).
VariablesTFTTETTFFriedman Test
with Bonferroni Correction
(p = 0.05)
Mean (SD)CI (95%)Mean (SD)CI (95%)Mean (SD)CI (95%)
RPE minute 00.0 (0.1)[0.0–0.1]0.1 (0.3)[0.0–0.2]0.0 (0.2)[0.0–0.1]NS
RPE minute 51.9 (1.6)[1.5–2.3]1.5 (1.2)[1.2–1.8]1.2 (1.2)[0.9–1.5]TF vs. TTF = 0.003 (0.46)
RPE minute 102.6 (1.7)[2.2–3.1]2.1 (1.3)[1.8–2.5]1.7 (1.4)[1.3–2.1]TF vs. TTF < 0.001 (0.53)
RPE minute 152.9 (1.7)[2.5–3.4]2.5 (1.6)[2.0–2.9]2.2 (1.6)[1.8–2.6]TF vs. TTF = 0.02 (0.37)
RPE minute 203.2 (1.8)[2.7–3.7]2.4 (1.7)[2.0–2.9]2.5 (1.7)[2.0–2.9]TF vs. TTF = 0.01 (0.38)
Friedman Test with Bonferroni correction
(p = 0.05)
0 vs. (5,10,15,20) < 0.001
5 vs. 10 = 0.03
5 vs. (15,20) < 0.001
0 vs. (5,10,15,20) < 0.001
5 vs. (15,20) < 0.001
0 vs. (5,10,15,20) ≤ 0.001
5 vs. (15,20) < 0.001
10 vs. 20 = 0.002
TF: two-finger, TTE: two-thumb, TTF: two-thumb-fist. RPE: Rating of perceive exertion SD: Standard deviation, CI: 95% Confidence intervals, NS: Not significance.
Table 3. Results of Numeric rating scale (NRS). (n = 56; 2 missed).
Table 3. Results of Numeric rating scale (NRS). (n = 56; 2 missed).
VariablesTFTTETTFFriedman Test
with Bonferroni Correction
(p = 0.05)
Mean (SD)CI (95%)Mean (SD)CI (95%)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)
NRS minute 00.0 (0.2)[0.0–0.1]0.1 (0.1)[0.0–0.1]0.0 (0.1)[0.0–0.1]NS
NRS minute 52.5 (1.8)[2.0–3.0]1.3 (1.1)[1.0–1.6]1.0 (1.1)[0.7–1.3]TF vs. TTE = 0.007 (0.44)
TF vs. TTF < 0.001 (0.73)
NRS minute 103.7 (2.2)[3.1–4.2]2.0 (1.3)[1.6–2.3]1.5 (1.4)[1.1–1.9]TF vs. TTE < 0.001 (0.63)
TF vs. TTF < 0.001 (0.91)
NRS minute 154.2 (2.2)[3.6–4.8]2.2 (1.3)[1.8–2.5]1.9 (1.4)[1.5–2.2]TF vs. TTE < 0.001 (0.70)
TF vs. TTF < 0.001 (0.90)
NRS minute 204.7 (2.5)[4.0–5.4]2.5 (1.5)[2.1–2.9]2.2 (1.5)[1.7–2.6]TF vs. TTE < 0.001 (0.69)
TF vs. TTF < 0.001 (0.80)
Friedman Test with Bonferroni correction
(p = 0.05)
0 vs. (5,10,15,20) ≤ 0.001
5 vs. 10 = 0.013
5 vs. (15,20) < 0.001
10 vs. 20 < 0.001
0 vs. (5,10,15,20) < 0.001
5 vs. 10 = 0.021
5 vs. (15,20) < 0.001
10 vs. 20 = 0.041
0 vs. (5,10,15,20) ≤ 0.001
5 vs. (15,20) < 0.001
10 vs. 20 = 0.003
TF: two-finger, TTE: two-thumb, TTF: two-thumb-fist, NRS: Numeric rating scale, SD: Standard deviation, CI: 95% Confidence intervals, NS: Not significance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barcala-Furelos, R.; Barcala-Furelos, M.; Cano-Noguera, F.; Otero-Agra, M.; Alonso-Calvete, A.; Martínez-Isasi, S.; Aranda-García, S.; López-García, S.; Rodríguez-Núñez, A. A Comparison between Three Different Techniques Considering Quality Skills, Fatigue and Hand Pain during a Prolonged Infant Resuscitation: A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards. Children 2022, 9, 910.

AMA Style

Barcala-Furelos R, Barcala-Furelos M, Cano-Noguera F, Otero-Agra M, Alonso-Calvete A, Martínez-Isasi S, Aranda-García S, López-García S, Rodríguez-Núñez A. A Comparison between Three Different Techniques Considering Quality Skills, Fatigue and Hand Pain during a Prolonged Infant Resuscitation: A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards. Children. 2022; 9(6):910.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barcala-Furelos, Roberto, Martín Barcala-Furelos, Francisco Cano-Noguera, Martín Otero-Agra, Alejandra Alonso-Calvete, Santiago Martínez-Isasi, Silvia Aranda-García, Sergio López-García, and Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez. 2022. "A Comparison between Three Different Techniques Considering Quality Skills, Fatigue and Hand Pain during a Prolonged Infant Resuscitation: A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards" Children 9, no. 6: 910.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop