OBJECTIVES: The ALERT algorithm, a telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) protocol, has been shown to help bystanders initiate CPR. Mobile phone communications may play a role in emergency calls and improve dispatchers' understanding of the rescuer's situation. However, there is currently no validated protocol for videoconference-assisted CPR (v-CPR). We initiated this study to validate an original protocol of v-CPR and to evaluate the potential benefit in comparison with classical telephone-CPR (t-CPR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an algorithm for v-CPR, adapted from the ALERT t-CPR protocol. A total of 180 students were recruited from secondary school and assigned randomly either to t-CPR or to v-CPR. A manikin was used to evaluate CPR performance. RESULTS: The mean chest compression rate was higher in the v-CPR group (v-CPR: 110±16 vs. t-CPR: 86±28; P<0.0001), whereas depth was comparable between both groups (v-CPR: 48±13 vs. t-CPR: 47±16 mm; P=0.64). Hand positioning was correct in 91.7% with v-CPR, but only 68% with t-CPR (P=0.001). There was almost no 'hands-off' period in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 0 (0-0.4) vs. t-CPR: 7 (0-25.5) s; P<0.0001], but the median no-flow time was increased in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 146 (128-173.5) vs. t-CPR: 122 (105-143.5) s, P<0.0001]. The overall score of CPR performance was improved in the v-CPR group (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The v-CPR protocol allows bystanders to reach compression rates and depths close to guidelines and to reduce 'hands-off' events during CPR.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The ALERT algorithm, a telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) protocol, has been shown to help bystanders initiate CPR. Mobile phone communications may play a role in emergency calls and improve dispatchers' understanding of the rescuer's situation. However, there is currently no validated protocol for videoconference-assisted CPR (v-CPR). We initiated this study to validate an original protocol of v-CPR and to evaluate the potential benefit in comparison with classical telephone-CPR (t-CPR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an algorithm for v-CPR, adapted from the ALERT t-CPR protocol. A total of 180 students were recruited from secondary school and assigned randomly either to t-CPR or to v-CPR. A manikin was used to evaluate CPR performance. RESULTS: The mean chest compression rate was higher in the v-CPR group (v-CPR: 110±16 vs. t-CPR: 86±28; P<0.0001), whereas depth was comparable between both groups (v-CPR: 48±13 vs. t-CPR: 47±16 mm; P=0.64). Hand positioning was correct in 91.7% with v-CPR, but only 68% with t-CPR (P=0.001). There was almost no 'hands-off' period in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 0 (0-0.4) vs. t-CPR: 7 (0-25.5) s; P<0.0001], but the median no-flow time was increased in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 146 (128-173.5) vs. t-CPR: 122 (105-143.5) s, P<0.0001]. The overall score of CPR performance was improved in the v-CPR group (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The v-CPR protocol allows bystanders to reach compression rates and depths close to guidelines and to reduce 'hands-off' events during CPR.
Authors: Myra H Wyckoff; Eunice M Singletary; Jasmeet Soar; Theresa M Olasveengen; Robert Greif; Helen G Liley; David Zideman; Farhan Bhanji; Lars W Andersen; Suzanne R Avis; Khalid Aziz; Jason C Bendall; David C Berry; Vere Borra; Bernd W Böttiger; Richard Bradley; Janet E Bray; Jan Breckwoldt; Jestin N Carlson; Pascal Cassan; Maaret Castrén; Wei-Tien Chang; Nathan P Charlton; Adam Cheng; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Daniela T Costa-Nobre; Keith Couper; Katie N Dainty; Peter G Davis; Maria Fernanda de Almeida; Allan R de Caen; Edison F de Paiva; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Matthew J Douma; Ian R Drennan; Jonathan P Duff; Kathryn J Eastwood; Walid El-Naggar; Jonathan L Epstein; Raffo Escalante; Jorge G Fabres; Joe Fawke; Judith C Finn; Elizabeth E Foglia; Fredrik Folke; Karoline Freeman; Elaine Gilfoyle; Craig A Goolsby; Amy Grove; Ruth Guinsburg; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Mary Fran Hazinski; George S Heriot; Karen G Hirsch; Mathias J Holmberg; Shigeharu Hosono; Ming-Ju Hsieh; Kevin K C Hung; Cindy H Hsu; Takanari Ikeyama; Tetsuya Isayama; Vishal S Kapadia; Mandira Daripa Kawakami; Han-Suk Kim; David A Kloeck; Peter J Kudenchuk; Anthony T Lagina; Kasper G Lauridsen; Eric J Lavonas; Andrew S Lockey; Carolina Malta Hansen; David Markenson; Tasuku Matsuyama; Christopher J D McKinlay; Amin Mehrabian; Raina M Merchant; Daniel Meyran; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Kevin J Nation; Michael Nemeth; Robert W Neumar; Tonia Nicholson; Susan Niermeyer; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Chika Nishiyama; Brian J O'Neil; Aaron M Orkin; Osokogu Osemeke; Michael J Parr; Catherine Patocka; Jeffrey L Pellegrino; Gavin D Perkins; Jeffrey M Perlman; Yacov Rabi; Joshua C Reynolds; Giuseppe Ristagno; Charles C Roehr; Tetsuya Sakamoto; Claudio Sandroni; Taylor Sawyer; Georg M Schmölzer; Sebastian Schnaubelt; Federico Semeraro; Markus B Skrifvars; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Roger F Soll; Takahiro Sugiura; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Daniele Trevisanuto; Christian Vaillancourt; Tzong-Luen Wang; Gary M Weiner; Michelle Welsford; Jane Wigginton; Jonathan P Wyllie; Joyce Yeung; Jerry P Nolan; Katherine M Berg Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Hannes Ecker; Sabine Wingen; Anna Hagemeier; Christopher Plata; Bernd W Böttiger; Wolfgang A Wetsch Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2022-02-28
Authors: Karol Bielski; Bernd W Böttiger; Michal Pruc; Aleksandra Gasecka; Mariusz Sieminski; Milosz J Jaguszewski; Jacek Smereka; Natasza Gilis-Malinowska; Frank W Peacock; Lukasz Szarpak Journal: Ann Med Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 4.709