Results: The two-thumb encircling technique achieved significantly greater compression depth and a higher percentage of compressions meeting the recommended depth (4 cm) compared to the two-finger method. No substantial differences in compression rate or chest recoil were observed between techniques.
We hypothesize that the two-thumb technique of performing chest compressions will result in deeper and more consistent chest compressions than the two-finger technique without compromising the quality of ventilation parameters.
Current guidelines for infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recommend two chest compression techniques: the two-finger (TF) for a single rescuer and the two-thumb encircling (TT) chest compression for two or more rescuers [4, 5].
thumbs to compress the chest while keeping the hands in a position that could allow quicker repositioning for ventilation. In a randomized trial on infant manikins, the cross-thumb method achieved compression depths comparable to the standard two-thumb technique and significantly greater than the two-finger approach (Jeon et al.
Abstract Objective: Previous experiments in the authors' swine lab have shown that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) using two-thumb chest compression with a thoracic squeeze (TT) produces higher blood and perfusion pressures when compared with the American Heart Association (AHA)-recommended two-finger (TF) technique.
Such details provide a deeper understanding and appreciation for Thumb Compression Vs Finger Compression.
Background To compare the 2-finger and 2-thumb chest compression techniques on infant manikins in an out-of-hospital setting regarding efficiency of compressions, ventilation, and rescuer pain and fatigue.
Crossover observational study randomizing 34 healthcare providers to perform 2 min CPR at a compression rate of 100 min(-1) using a 30:2 compression:ventilation ratio comparing two-thumb vs. two-finger techniques.
