A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal

A Comparison Between a Resuscitation Glove and Standard Manual Compressions on the Quality of Cardiovascular Resuscitation




AuthorsKahsay, Desale Tewelde; Tommila, Miretta; Peltonen, Laura-Maria; Löyttyniemi, Eliisa; Xiao, Yu; Mauranen, Henry; Salanterä, Sanna

PublisherOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Publication year2025

JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Nursing

Journal name in sourceJournal of Cardiovascular Nursing

Journal acronymJ Cardiovasc Nurs

ISSN0889-4655

eISSN1550-5049

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0000000000001206

Web address https://doi.org/10.1097/jcn.0000000000001206

Self-archived copy’s web addresshttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/491912438


Abstract

Background 

Several audiovisual feedback (AVF) devices have been developed to monitor chest compression quality during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, most marketed stand-alone AVF devices are inflexible and rigid, causing discomfort and sometimes pain to the rescuers' hands.

Objective 

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and usability of a newly developed soft and flexible resuscitation glove designed to improve the quality of chest compressions during CPR.

Methods 

We conducted a manikin-based randomized crossover study to compare the effectiveness of a newly developed AVF device (ResuGlove CPR Group) and standard CPR (Standard CPR Group) in improving the quality of chest compressions in simulated cardiac arrest cases. The usability of the newly developed ResuGlove was assessed using a System Usability Scale questionnaire.

Results 

There were no significant differences in compression depth (mean, 53.69 vs 53.28; P = .70) and compression rate (mean, 111.48 vs 113.38; P = .23) between the ResuGlove CPR and Standard CPR groups. However, the group using ResuGlove had a higher percentage of complete chest releases between compressions (P = .008). Furthermore, the ResuGlove CPR Group had a significantly higher percentage of participants who performed chest compressions with adequate compression depth (82.8% vs 41.4%, P = .001) and compression rate (96.6% vs 72.4%, P = .012) compared with the Standard CPR Group. The ResuGlove usability score was calculated to be 70.4.

Conclusions 

The newly developed ResuGlove significantly improved the quality of certain chest compression parameters, and the device's usability score was within the acceptable range.


Downloadable publication

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.




Funding information in the publication
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.


Last updated on 2025-06-06 at 09:43