BACKGROUND: The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines 2005 have brought major changes in the BLS algorithm. The aim of our investigation was to look for the practical impact of these modifications. METHODS: In a randomized cross-over design we evaluated how adults would adhere to the BLS algorithm of the ERC guidelines 2000 (group A) compared to the guidelines 2005 (group B). The secondary endpoint was to determine the amount of time that elapsed before the start of the chest compressions in the two different groups. Participants were recruited from the streets and an office building of the Austrian Red Cross and were randomized to commence either with A or B. The volunteers were taught the allocated BLS sequence according to their group placement, and before evaluation each of the two groups was given the opportunity to train until they felt confident in using the algorithm. Performance during evaluation was documented automatically with a recording resuscitation manikin (Resusci-Anne, Skill Reporter). RESULTS:Sixty people were included in the study, one individual dropped out after randomisation. In group A 9/59 (15.25%) participants followed the algorithm correctly versus 24/59 (40.68%) in group B (p=0.006). The time to start of chest compressions was significantly shorter in group B (21.31+/-7.11s), compared to group A (36.68+/-11.75s, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to the 2000 BLS algorithm, the 2005 BLS sequence seems to be easier to learn and to retain, though nearly 60% of participants did not follow the new algorithm correctly. As expected, there was a significantly shorter time elapsing before the start of chest compressions when applying the 2005 algorithm. These findings should translate to better survival after cardiac arrest.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines 2005 have brought major changes in the BLS algorithm. The aim of our investigation was to look for the practical impact of these modifications. METHODS: In a randomized cross-over design we evaluated how adults would adhere to the BLS algorithm of the ERC guidelines 2000 (group A) compared to the guidelines 2005 (group B). The secondary endpoint was to determine the amount of time that elapsed before the start of the chest compressions in the two different groups. Participants were recruited from the streets and an office building of the Austrian Red Cross and were randomized to commence either with A or B. The volunteers were taught the allocated BLS sequence according to their group placement, and before evaluation each of the two groups was given the opportunity to train until they felt confident in using the algorithm. Performance during evaluation was documented automatically with a recording resuscitation manikin (Resusci-Anne, Skill Reporter). RESULTS: Sixty people were included in the study, one individual dropped out after randomisation. In group A 9/59 (15.25%) participants followed the algorithm correctly versus 24/59 (40.68%) in group B (p=0.006). The time to start of chest compressions was significantly shorter in group B (21.31+/-7.11s), compared to group A (36.68+/-11.75s, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to the 2000 BLS algorithm, the 2005 BLS sequence seems to be easier to learn and to retain, though nearly 60% of participants did not follow the new algorithm correctly. As expected, there was a significantly shorter time elapsing before the start of chest compressions when applying the 2005 algorithm. These findings should translate to better survival after cardiac arrest.
Authors: Roman Fleischhackl; Alexander Nuernberger; Fritz Sterz; Christina Schoenberg; Tania Urso; Tanja Habart; Martina Mittlboeck; Nisha Chandra-Strobos Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 9.097