Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: A randomised simulation study

Zapletal, Bernhard; Greif, Robert; Stumpf, Dominik; Nierscher, Franz Josef; Frantal, Sophie; Haugk, Moritz; Ruetzler, Kurt; Schlimp, Christoph J.; Fischer, Henrik

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.10.028

Cited by 70 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During chest compressions with the use of PocketCPR application, the mean compression depth was 50.3 ± 18.2 mm, while during SMCC it was 49.5 ± 8.8 mm. In other studies, chest compression depth during standard basic life support was 43 mm in the study by Sutton et al [25], 46 mm in the study by Ettl et al [26], and 55 mm in the study by Zapletal et al [27].…”

Section: Multivariate Analysismentioning

confidence: 81%

“…The mean compression rate using these approaches was 105.1 min , respectively. Also in the studies by Zapletal et al [27] and Blomberg et al [28], a higher chest compression rate during CPR was noted for standard manual compressions compared to device-guided CPR. A lower chest compression rate during standard manual compressions was reported by ) [25].…”

Section: Multivariate Analysismentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual chest compressions and the use of TrueCPR and PocketCPR feedback devices

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c tBackground: High effectiveness of chest compressions is an important element of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), improving survival and reducing neurological deficits resulting from sudden cardiac arrest.Aim: Evaluation of the effectiveness of standard manual chest compressions (SMCC) and CPR with the use of two CPR feedback devices: TrueCPR and PocketCPR.Methods: 167 paramedics participated in the study. The participants were randomised to perform SMCC, CPR using the TrueCPR device, and CPR using a smartphone with the PocketCPR application in a crossover fashion. Results:Comparison of SMCC, TrueCPR and PocketCPR showed differences in the effectiveness of chest compressions (40.3%, 85.5% and 28.8%, respectively), compression depth (49.5, 56.5 and 50.3 mm, respectively), and compression rate (118.5, 105.1, and 89.5 min -1 , respectively). Conclusions:During simulated CPR, TrueCPR device significantly increased the effectiveness of chest compressions compared to SMCC and the use of PocketCPR smartphone application. Further studies are required to confirm these findings in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Multivariate Analysismentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Multivariate Analysismentioning

confidence: 92%

Comparison of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual chest compressions and the use of TrueCPR and PocketCPR feedback devices

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether feedback devices actually improve or worsen quality of CPR is a topic of ongoing debate. For example, Zapletal et al [17] reported feedback devices to be not associated with improved CPR quality. This study disagrees with our findings because using the feedback device was clearly associated with better chest compressions, therefore supporting several previous studies [11,12,[18][19][20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the level of experience of the CPR providers differed between these studies. Zapletal et al [17] also reported that use of a feedback device was associated with a delay of starting CPR and consequently concluded that this might be one of the major disadvantages. Although we did not investigate the time to initiation of CPR in this study, we disagree with this statement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of the use of a CPRMeter monitor on quality of chest compressions: a prospective randomised trial, cross-simulation

Iskrzycki¹,

Smereka²,

Núñez³

et al. 2018

Kardiol Pol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c tBackground: Drowning is a common issue at many pools and beaches, and in seas all over the world. Lifeguards often act as bystanders, and therefore adequate training in high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and use of adequate equipment by lifeguards is essential. Aim:The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the recently introduced CPRMeter (Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) on quality of CPR, if used by moderately experienced CPR providers. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that using the CPRMeter improves quality of chest compression by lifeguards compared to standard non-feedback CPR. Methods:The study was designed as prospective, randomised, cross-over manikin trial. Fifty lifeguards of the Volunteer Water Rescue Service (WOPR), a Polish nationwide association specialised in water rescue, participated in this study. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to one of two groups: a feedback group and a non-feedback group. Participants swim a distance of 25 m in the pool, and then they were asked to haul a manikin for the second 25 m, simulating rescuing a drowning victim. Once participants finished the second 25-m distance, participants were asked to initiate 2-min basic life support according to the randomisation. Results:The median quality of CPR score for the 2-min CPR session without feedback was 69 (33-77) compared to 84 (55-93) in the feedback group (p < 0.001). Compression score, mean depth, rate of adequate chest compressions/min, and overall mean rate during the CPR session improved significantly in the feedback group, compared to the non-feedback group. Conclusions:Using the visual real-time feedback device significantly improved quality of CPR in our relatively unexperienced CPR providers. Better quality of bystander CPR is essential for clinical outcomes, and therefore feedback devices should be considered. Further clinical studies are needed to assess the effect of real-time visual devices, especially in bystander-CPR.

show abstract

“…Es wurden jedoch substanzielle Abweichungen in der Verbesserung der CPR-Leistung zwischen verschiedenen CPR-Feedback-Geräten entdeckt [74][75][76].…”

Section: Trainingsstrategien Für Die Basismaßnahmenunclassified

Ausbildung und Implementierung der Reanimation

Greif

Lockey

Conaghan

et al. 2015

Notfall Rettungsmed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: A randomised simulation study

Cited by 70 publications

References 26 publications

Comparison of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual chest compressions and the use of TrueCPR and PocketCPR feedback devices

Comparison of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual chest compressions and the use of TrueCPR and PocketCPR feedback devices

The impact of the use of a CPRMeter monitor on quality of chest compressions: a prospective randomised trial, cross-simulation

Ausbildung und Implementierung der Reanimation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About