Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study.
BACKGROUND
Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality.


METHODS
In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups.


RESULTS
Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups.


CONCLUSIONS
While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.
Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
Bernhard
B
Zapletal
Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Switzerland.
Robert
R
Greif
Department of Family Medicine, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity Linz, Austria.
Dominik
D
Stumpf
Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
Franz Josef
FJ
Nierscher
Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
Sophie
S
Frantal
Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
Moritz
M
Haugk
Institute of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
Kurt
K
Ruetzler
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, AUVA Research Centre, Vienna, Austria.
Christoph
C
Schlimp
Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Control, Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Medical University Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: henrik.fischer@utanet.at.
Henrik
H
Fischer
D061725:Accelerometry / Q000295:instrumentation; D000328:Adult; D049628:Body Size; D016887:Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / Q000295:instrumentation*; D056228:Feedback, Sensory; D005260:Female; D006323:Heart Arrest / Q000628:therapy*; D006336:Heart Massage / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008297:Male; D008348:Manikins; D011312:Pressure; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D055815:Young Adult
Basic life support (BLS); Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); Feedback device