Key result
Prone CPR reduces time to initiate chest compressions by ~96% versus supine CPR in simulation.
Why the study?
Repositioning a patient from the prone to supine position can delay the initiation of CPR.
Does prone CPR reduce time to initiate chest compressions and improve chest compression fraction compared to supine CPR in a simulation setting?
Does prone CPR reduce time to initiate chest compressions and improve chest compression fraction compared to supine CPR in a simulation setting?
In a simulation setting, prone CPR significantly decreases the time to initiate chest compressions and increases the chest compression fraction compared to repositioning a patient to the supine position.
Repositioning a patient from the prone to supine position can delay the initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Investigators used high‐fidelity simulation to assess the time to initiate chest compressions and the time during which compressions did not occur for supine and prone CPR. Sixty participants completed a knowledge assessment before and after attending an education session and completing two simulations (ie, supine, prone). Mean (SD) knowledge scores improved from 48.7% (17.4%) to 85.3% (14.7%) after the education and simulations (t59 = −12.32, P < .001). Prone CPR resulted in a significant reduction in the time to initiate chest compressions (13 seconds, prone; 314 seconds, supine; t11 = −31.79; P < .001) and a higher chest compression fraction (84% prone versus 42% supine; t11 = 19.1, P < .001). When compared to repositioning to supine, prone CPR decreased chest compression interruptions, and may therefore be beneficial during the perioperative period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2025) studied Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (n=60). Prone CPR vs. Supine CPR was evaluated on Time to initiate chest compressions (seconds) (p=<.001). Prone CPR significantly reduced the time to initiate chest compressions (13 vs 314 seconds; P<.001) and increased chest compression fraction (84% vs 42%) compared to supine CPR in a simulation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: