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.

No abstract

PurposeOut-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) are a major healthcare problem. Over the years, several initiatives have contributed to more lay volunteers providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and increased use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in the Netherlands. As part of a quality and outcomes program, we registered bystander CPR, AED use and outcome in the Nijmegen area.MethodsProspective resuscitation registry with a study cohort of non-traumatic OHCA cases from 2013–2016 and historical controls from 2008–2011. In line with previous reports, we studied patients transported to the hospital (Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands) and excluded arrests witnessed by the emergency medical service (EMS). Primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to discharge.ResultsIn the study cohort (n = 349) the AED was attached more often than in the historical cohort (n = 180): 46% vs. 23% and the proportion of bystander CPR was higher: 78% vs. 63% (both p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients received an AED shock (39% vs. 15%, p < 0.001) and the number of required shocks by the EMS was lower (2 vs. 4, p = 0.004). Survival to discharge was higher (47% vs. 33%, p = 0.002) without differences in ROSC. The survival benefit was restricted to patients with a shockable initial rhythm. In both cohorts, bystander CPR and AED use were independently associated with survival.ConclusionIn patients admitted after OHCA, survival to discharge has markedly improved to 40–50%, comparable with other Dutch registries. As increased bystander CPR and the doubled use of AEDs seem to have contributed, all civilian-based resuscitation initiatives should be encouraged.

No abstract