| Literature DB >> 34848519 |
Cristian Abelairas-Gómez1,2,3, Santiago Martinez-Isasi4,3,5, Roberto Barcala-Furelos6,7, Cristina Varela-Casal6,7, Aida Carballo-Fazanes1,3,5, María Pichel-López6, Felipe Fernández Méndez6, Martín Otero-Agra6, Luis Sanchez Santos8, Antonio Rodriguez-Nuñez1,3,5,9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 4-month rolling-refreshers and annual retraining in basic life support (BLS) on a sample of schoolchildren.Entities:
Keywords: adult intensive & critical care; medical education & training; public health
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34848519 PMCID: PMC8634240 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Timetable of the longitudinal design.
Figure 2Intragroup analysis of BLS sequence. From left to right, CG–SG–RRG: *p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.001. BLS, basic life support; CG, control group; RRG, rolling-refresher group; SG, standard group.
Figure 3Intergroup analysis of BLS sequence in T2. Significant differences were found in all comparisons (p<0.001) CG vs SG and CG vs RRG except for ‘start CPR’. Asterisks show differences between SG and RRG: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. BLS, basic life support; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CG, control group; EMS, emergency medical services; RRG, rolling-refresher group; SG, standard group.
Intragroup and intergroup analysis of CPR variables
| CG | SG | RRG | P† | |||
| CG vs SG | CG vs RRG | SG vs RRG | ||||
| Global quality of CPR (%) | ||||||
| T1 | 12.8 (22.3) | 26.8 (29.2) | 10.8 (18.6) | <0.001 | – | <0.001 |
| T2 | 16.4 (24.1) | 25.3 (28.8) | 29.9 (29.4) | – | <0.001 | 0.025 |
| p | – | – | <0.001 | |||
| Mean rate | ||||||
| T1 | 114.9 (21.6) | 113.6 (17.5) | 107.5 (22.4) | – | 0.040 | 0.001 |
| T2 | 123.0 (23.4) | 115.7 (18.9) | 105.9 (20.2) | 0.041 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| p | <0.001 | – | – | |||
| Mean depth | ||||||
| T1 | 26.4 (10.1) | 30.6 (12.1) | 26.3 (9.1) | 0.020 | – | – |
| T2 | 31.3 (10.9) | 33.5 (10.8) | 36.7 (11.5) | – | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| p | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| % CC by depth | ||||||
| T1 | 3.9 (11.8) | 4.3 (13.3) | 2.3 (7.3) | – | – | – |
| T2 | 7.2 (16.7) | 10.8 (22.7) | 15.5 (26.1) | – | <0.001 | 0.010 |
| p | 0.030 | 0.002 | <0.001 | |||
| % CC by rate | ||||||
| T1 | 36.4 (33.4) | 40.6 (33.1) | 32.7 (30.6) | – | – | – |
| T2 | 34.9 (34.9) | 39.8 (36.8) | 38.8 (35.8) | – | – | – |
| p | – | – | – | |||
| % CC with complete recoil | ||||||
| T1 | 89.0 (19.1) | 89.8 (21.3) | 89.2 (16.4) | – | – | – |
| T2 | 89.4 (18.8) | 86.2 (24.7) | 84.8 (26.2) | – | – | – |
| p | – | – | – | |||
| % CC with correct hands position | ||||||
| T1 | 97.0 (14.4) | 96.1 (21.7) | 98.2 (10.8) | – | – | – |
| T2 | 76.4 (35.1) | 92.5 (19.7) | 95.0 (17.2) | <0.001 | <0.001 | – |
| p | <0.001 | – | – | |||
Continuous variables expressed as mean (SD).
*Intragroup analysis.
†Intergroup analysis.
CC, chest compression; CG, control group; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; RRG, rolling-refresher group; SG, standard group with retraining.
Figure 4Relationships between anthropometric variables (X-axis: BMI, weight and height) and chest compression depth (Y-axis) with associated Pearson correlation coefficients. BMI, body mass index; CG, control group; RRG, rolling-refresher group; SG, standard group.