Camilla Metelmann1, Bibiana Metelmann2, Louisa Schuffert2, Klaus Hahnenkamp2, Marcus Vollmer3, Peter Brinkrolf2. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. camilla.metelmann@uni-greifswald.de. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 3. Institute of Bioinformatics, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Bystander-initiated resuscitation is essential for surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Smartphone apps can provide real-time guidance for medical laypersons in these situations. Are these apps a beneficial addition to traditional resuscitation training? METHODS: In this controlled trial, we assessed the impact of app use on the quality of resuscitation (hands-off time, assessment of the patient's condition, quality of chest compression, body and arm positioning). Pupils who have previously undergone a standardised resuscitation training, encountered a simulated cardiac arrest either (i) without an app (control group); (ii) with facultative app usage; or (iii) with mandatory app usage. Measurements were compared using generalised linear regression. RESULTS:200 pupils attended this study with 74 pupils in control group, 65 in facultative group and 61 in mandatory group. Participants who had to use the app significantly delayed thecheck for breathing, call for help, and first compression, leading to longer total hands-off time. Hands-off time during chest compression did not differ significantly. The percentage of correct compression rate and correct compression depth was significantly higher when app use was mandatory. Assessment of the patient's condition, and body and arm positioning did not differ. CONCLUSIONS:Smartphone apps offering real-time guidance in resuscitation can improve the quality of chest compression but may also delay the start of resuscitation. Provided that the app gives easy-to-implement, guideline-compliant instructions and that the user is familiar with its operation, we recommend smartphone-guidance as an additional tool to hands-on CPR-training to increase the prevalence and quality of bystander-initiated CPR.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Bystander-initiated resuscitation is essential for surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Smartphone apps can provide real-time guidance for medical laypersons in these situations. Are these apps a beneficial addition to traditional resuscitation training? METHODS: In this controlled trial, we assessed the impact of app use on the quality of resuscitation (hands-off time, assessment of the patient's condition, quality of chest compression, body and arm positioning). Pupils who have previously undergone a standardised resuscitation training, encountered a simulated cardiac arrest either (i) without an app (control group); (ii) with facultative app usage; or (iii) with mandatory app usage. Measurements were compared using generalised linear regression. RESULTS: 200 pupils attended this study with 74 pupils in control group, 65 in facultative group and 61 in mandatory group. Participants who had to use the app significantly delayed the check for breathing, call for help, and first compression, leading to longer total hands-off time. Hands-off time during chest compression did not differ significantly. The percentage of correct compression rate and correct compression depth was significantly higher when app use was mandatory. Assessment of the patient's condition, and body and arm positioning did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone apps offering real-time guidance in resuscitation can improve the quality of chest compression but may also delay the start of resuscitation. Provided that the app gives easy-to-implement, guideline-compliant instructions and that the user is familiar with its operation, we recommend smartphone-guidance as an additional tool to hands-on CPR-training to increase the prevalence and quality of bystander-initiated CPR.
Entities:
Keywords:
cardiac arrest; health informatics; mHealth; resuscitation; smartphone; teaching
Authors: Koenraad G Monsieurs; Jerry P Nolan; Leo L Bossaert; Robert Greif; Ian K Maconochie; Nikolaos I Nikolaou; Gavin D Perkins; Jasmeet Soar; Anatolij Truhlář; Jonathan Wyllie; David A Zideman Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Gwan Jin Park; Kyoung Jun Song; Sang Do Shin; Kyung Won Lee; Ki Ok Ahn; Eui Jung Lee; Ki Jeong Hong; Young Sun Ro Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Zachary D Goldberger; Thomas Rea; Robert A Swor; Bentley J Bobrow; Erin E Brennan; Mark Terry; Robin Hemphill; Raúl J Gazmuri; Mary Fran Hazinski; Andrew H Travers Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Jan Wnent; Johan Herlitz; Gavin D Perkins; Rolf Lefering; Ingvild Tjelmeland; Rudolph W Koster; Siobhán Masterson; Fernando Rossell-Ortiz; Holger Maurer; Bernd W Böttiger; Maximilian Moertl; Pierre Mols; Hajriz Alihodžić; Irzal Hadžibegović; Marios Ioannides; Anatolij Truhlář; Mads Wissenberg; Ari Salo; Josephine Escutnaire; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Eniko Nagy; Bergthor Steinn Jonsson; Peter Wright; Federico Semeraro; Carlo Clarens; Steffie Beesems; Grzegorz Cebula; Vitor H Correia; Diana Cimpoesu; Violetta Raffay; Stefan Trenkler; Andrej Markota; Anneli Strömsöe; Roman Burkart; Scott Booth; Leo Bossaert Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Nichole Bosson; Andrea Fang; Amy H Kaji; Marianne Gausche-Hill; William J French; David Shavelle; Joseph L Thomas; James T Niemann Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2019-02-10 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Peter Brinkrolf; Andreas Bohn; Roman-Patrik Lukas; Marko Heyse; Thomas Dierschke; Hugo Karel Van Aken; Klaus Hahnenkamp Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.240