Journal article
Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study.
- Zapletal B Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
- Greif R Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Switzerland.
- Stumpf D Department of Family Medicine, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity Linz, Austria.
- Nierscher FJ Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
- Frantal S Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
- Haugk M Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
- Ruetzler K Institute of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
- Schlimp C Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, AUVA Research Centre, Vienna, Austria.
- Fischer H Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Control, Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Medical University Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: henrik.fischer@utanet.at.
- 2013-11-13
Published in:
- Resuscitation. - 2014
Basic life support (BLS)
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
Feedback device
Accelerometry
Adult
Body Size
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Feedback, Sensory
Female
Heart Arrest
Heart Massage
Humans
Life Support Care
Male
Manikins
Pressure
Quality of Health Care
Young Adult
English
BACKGROUND
Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality.
METHODS
In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups.
RESULTS
Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups.
CONCLUSION
While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.
Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality.
METHODS
In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups.
RESULTS
Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups.
CONCLUSION
While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.10.028
- PMID 24215730
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/144134
Statistics
Document views: 8
File downloads: