Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is crucial for survival after cardiac arrest but not performed in most cases. New, low-cost, and easily accessible training methods, such as virtual reality (VR), may reach broader target populations, but data on achieved CPR skills are lacking. OBJECTIVE To compare CPR quality between VR and face-to-face CPR training. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized noninferiority trial with a prospective randomized open blinded end point design. Participants were adult attendees from the science section of the Lowlands Music Festival (August 16 to 18, 2019) in the Netherlands. Analysis began September 2019. INTERVENTIONS Two standardized 20-minute protocols on CPR and automated external defibrillator use: instructor-led face-to-face training or VR training using a smartphone app endorsed by the Resuscitation Council (United Kingdom). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESDuring a standardized CPR scenario following the training, we assessed the primary outcome CPR quality, measured as chest compression depth and rate using CPR manikins. Overall CPR performance was assessed by examiners, blinded for study groups, using a European Resuscitation Council-endorsed checklist (maximum score, 13). Additional secondary outcomes were chest compression fraction, proportions of participants with mean depth (50 mm-60 mm) or rate (100 min −1 -120 min −1 ) within guideline ranges, and proportions compressions with full release. RESULTS A total of 381 participants were randomized: 216 women (57%); median (interquartile range [IQR]) age, 26 (22-31) years. The VR app (n = 190 [49.9%]) was inferior to face-to-face training (n = 191 [50.1%]) for chest compression depth (mean [SD], VR: 49 [10] mm vs face to face: 57 [5] mm; mean [95% CI] difference, −8 [−9 to −6] mm), and noninferior for chest compression rate (mean [SD]: VR: 114 [12] min −1 vs face to face: 109 [12] min −1 ; mean [95% CI] difference, 6 [3 to 8] min −1 ). The VR group had lower overall CPR performance scores (median [IQR], 10 [8-12] vs 12 [12-13]; P < .001). Chest compression fraction (median [IQR], 61% [52%-66%] vs 67% [62%-71%]; P < .001) and proportions of participants fulfilling depth (51% [n = 89] vs 75% [n = 133], P < .001) and rate (50% [n = 87] vs 63% [n = 111], P = .01) requirements were also lower in the VR group. The proportion of compressions with full release was higher in the VR group (median [IQR], 98% [59%-100%] vs 88% [55%-99%]; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized noninferiority trial, VR training resulted in comparable chest compression rate but inferior compression depth compared with face-to-face training. Given the potential of VR training to reach a larger target population, further development is needed to achieve the compression depth and overall CPR skills acquired by face-to-face training.

IntroductionBecause of the lack of prehospital protocols to rule out a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), patients with chest pain are often transferred to the emergency department (ED) for thorough evaluation. However, in low-risk patients, an ACS is rarely found, resulting in unnecessary healthcare consumption. Using the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin) score, low-risk patients are easily identified. When a point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement is included in the HEART score, an ACS can adequately be ruled out in low-risk patients in the prehospital setting. However, it remains unclear whether a prehospital rule-out strategy using the HEART score and a POC troponin measurement in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS is cost-effective.Methods and analysisThe ARTICA trial is a randomised trial in which the primary objective is to investigate the cost-effectiveness after 30 days of an early rule-out strategy for low-risk patients suspected of a NSTE-ACS, using a modified HEART score including a POC troponin T measurement. Patients are included by ambulance paramedics and 1:1 randomised for (1) presentation at the ED (control group) or (2) POC troponin T measurement (intervention group) and transfer of the care to the general practitioner in case of a low troponin T value. In total, 866 patients will be included. Follow-up will be performed after 30 days, 6 months and 12 months.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been accepted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee region Arnhem-Nijmegen. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and in additional papers with subgroup analyses.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Register (NL7148).

Aims Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are routinely transferred to the emergency department (ED). A clinical risk score with point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement might enable ambulance paramedics to identify low-risk patients in whom ED evaluation is unnecessary. The aim was to assess safety and healthcare costs of a pre-hospital rule-out strategy using a POC troponin measurement in low-risk suspected NSTE-ACS patients. Methods and results This investigator-initiated, randomized clinical trial was conducted in five ambulance regions in the Netherlands. Suspected NSTE-ACS patients with HEAR (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors) score ≤3 were randomized to pre-hospital rule-out with POC troponin measurement or direct transfer to the ED. The sample size calculation was based on the primary outcome of 30-day healthcare costs. Secondary outcome was safety, defined as 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), consisting of ACS, unplanned revascularization or all-cause death. : A total of 863 participants were randomized. Healthcare costs were significantly lower in the pre-hospital strategy (€1349 ± €2051 vs. €1960 ± €1808) with a mean difference of €611 [95% confidence interval (CI): 353–869; P &lt; 0.001]. In the total population, MACE were comparable between groups [3.9% (17/434) in pre-hospital strategy vs. 3.7% (16/429) in ED strategy; P = 0.89]. In the ruled-out ACS population, MACE were very low [0.5% (2/419) vs. 1.0% (4/417)], with a risk difference of −0.5% (95% CI −1.6%–0.7%; P = 0.41) in favour of the pre-hospital strategy. Conclusion Pre-hospital rule-out of ACS with a POC troponin measurement in low-risk patients significantly reduces healthcare costs while incidence of MACE was low in both strategies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT05466591 and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform id NTR 7346.

No abstract