Truszewski Z, Szarpak L, Kurowski A, Evrin T, Zasko P, Bogdanski L, Czyzewski L. Randomized trial of the chest compressions effectiveness comparing 3 feedback CPR devices and standard basic life support by nurses.
Am J Emerg Med 2015;
34:381-5. [PMID:
26612703 DOI:
10.1016/j.ajem.2015.11.003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2015] [Revised: 10/23/2015] [Accepted: 11/01/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of mortality and serious neurological morbidity in Europe. We aim to investigate the effect of 3 cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices on effectiveness of chest compression during CPR.
METHODS
This was prospective, randomized, crossover, controlled trial. Following a brief didactic session, 140 volunteer nurses inexperienced with feedback CPR devices attempted chest compression on a manikin using 3 CPR feedback devices (TrueCPR, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR) and standard basic life support (BLS) without feedback.
RESULTS
Comparison of standard BLS, TrueCPR, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR showed differences in the effectiveness of chest compression (compressions with correct pressure point, correct depth, and sufficient decompression), which are, respectively, 37.5%, 85.6%, 39.5%, and 33.4%; compression depth (44.6 vs 54.5 vs 45.6 vs 39.6 mm); and compression rate (129.4 vs 110.2 vs 101.5 vs 103.5 min(-1)).
CONCLUSIONS
During the simulated resuscitation scenario, only TrueCPR significantly affected the increased effectiveness compression compared with standard BLS, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR. Further studies are required to confirm the results in clinical practice.
Collapse