INTRODUCTION: Quality of external chest compression (ECC) is a key component of Basic Life Support. Different approaches to improve rescuers' performance have been evaluated, but few attempts have been made to invent simple devices to improve performance. This study evaluates a new visual feedback system for ECC for healthcare professionals. METHODS:Ninety-three healthcare professionals volunteered (14 emergency medical technicians, 45 paramedics, 34 physicians; age 32+/-7.2 (range 21-61); 72% male) in this randomized cross-over study. All subjects were tested on a manikin (Skillreporter ResusciAnne, Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) in identical mock cardiac arrest scenario and asked to perform 2 min of continuous ECC (secured airway): Group A (n=46): ECC with device first, followed by ECC without device a minimum of 45 min later; group B (n=47): vice versa. Primary endpoints: mean compression rate 90-120 min(-1); mean compression depth 38-51 mm. Data were analyzed using repeated measure logistic regression model for binary categorized endpoints and repeated measure ANOVA test for continuous endpoints. RESULTS:Correct compression depth was achieved by 45.2% of subjects (95%-CI: 30.5-64.9 mm) without vs. 73.1% (95%-CI: 40.3-57.4 mm) with device (p<0.001); correct compression rate was achieved by 62.4% (95%-CI: 78-147.8 min(-1)) without vs. 94.6% (95%-CI: 87.3-126.6 min(-1)) with device (p<0.001). Overall, 85% of the subjects thought the feedback system was helpful and 80.6% would use it if available. CONCLUSIONS: The new visual feedback device significantly improved ECC performance (compression rate and depth) by healthcare professionals in simulated cardiac arrest. Most participants found the device easy to use. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Quality of external chest compression (ECC) is a key component of Basic Life Support. Different approaches to improve rescuers' performance have been evaluated, but few attempts have been made to invent simple devices to improve performance. This study evaluates a new visual feedback system for ECC for healthcare professionals. METHODS: Ninety-three healthcare professionals volunteered (14 emergency medical technicians, 45 paramedics, 34 physicians; age 32+/-7.2 (range 21-61); 72% male) in this randomized cross-over study. All subjects were tested on a manikin (Skillreporter ResusciAnne, Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) in identical mock cardiac arrest scenario and asked to perform 2 min of continuous ECC (secured airway): Group A (n=46): ECC with device first, followed by ECC without device a minimum of 45 min later; group B (n=47): vice versa. Primary endpoints: mean compression rate 90-120 min(-1); mean compression depth 38-51 mm. Data were analyzed using repeated measure logistic regression model for binary categorized endpoints and repeated measure ANOVA test for continuous endpoints. RESULTS: Correct compression depth was achieved by 45.2% of subjects (95%-CI: 30.5-64.9 mm) without vs. 73.1% (95%-CI: 40.3-57.4 mm) with device (p<0.001); correct compression rate was achieved by 62.4% (95%-CI: 78-147.8 min(-1)) without vs. 94.6% (95%-CI: 87.3-126.6 min(-1)) with device (p<0.001). Overall, 85% of the subjects thought the feedback system was helpful and 80.6% would use it if available. CONCLUSIONS: The new visual feedback device significantly improved ECC performance (compression rate and depth) by healthcare professionals in simulated cardiac arrest. Most participants found the device easy to use. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Alexander E White; Han Xian Ng; Wai Yee Ng; Eileen Kai Xin Ng; Stephanie Fook-Chong; Phek Hui Jade Kua; Marcus Eng Hock Ong Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Marion Leary; David G Buckler; Daniel J Ikeda; Daiane A Saraiva; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni; Audrey L Blewer; Benjamin S Abella Journal: World J Emerg Med Date: 2017
Authors: A Wutzler; S von Ulmenstein; M Bannehr; K Völk; J Förster; C Storm; W Haverkamp Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: M Skorning; M Derwall; J C Brokmann; D Rörtgen; S Bergrath; J Pflipsen; S Beuerlein; R Rossaint; S K Beckers Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Sebastian G Russo; Peter Neumann; Sylvia Reinhardt; Arnd Timmermann; André Niklas; Michael Quintel; Christoph B Eich Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2011-11-04