Aim of the study:
Effective CPR training is important for provision of high-quality bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has hindered conventional face-to-face CPR training. To overcome the limitation, we developed a distance learning CPR training course (HEROS-Remote) that utilized a smartphone app and a delivery-collection system for CPR training manikins. The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HEROS-Remote course by comparing chest compression quality between trainees who participated in the conventional CPR training (C-training) and HEROS-Remote course (R-training).
Methods:
The non-inferiority trial included adult nonhealthcare providers who applied for CPR training. Both groups underwent 2-minute post-training chest compression test followed by course survey on trainees’ course and delivery system satisfaction. The primary outcome of the study was mean chest compression depth during the 2-minute post-training test.
Results:
A total of 180 trainees were enrolled with 90 trainees for each training group. There was no statistically significant difference in chest compression depth between R-training and C-training groups (67.4 vs. 67.8, p=0.78) as well as proportion of adequate chest compression depth, chest compression rate, proportion of chest compressions with complete chest recoil and chest compression score (90.8 vs. 92.1, p=0.69; 110.8 vs. 110.4, p=0.60; 89.8 vs. 94.7, p=0.05; 92.7 vs. 95.5, p=0.16, respectively). In the R-training group, 90.0% of the trainees were satisfied with the course, 96% responded that the delivery system was satisfactory and convenient.
Conclusion:
The R-training course was noninferior to the C-training course. The distance learning CPR training method utilizing smartphone app and mannikin delivery-collection system had high user satisfaction and was logistically feasible.
Background:
The effect of initial epinephrine administration time from cardiac arrest on cerebral perfusion pressure (CePP) during CPR is controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between initial epinephrine administration time and CePP in a porcine cardiac arrest model.
Methods:
Initial administration time of epinephrine was divided into 3 groups based on time after inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF): 5 minutes (early group), 10 minutes (intermediate group), and 15 minutes (delayed group). Twenty-four pigs were randomly assigned to each group. After 4 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, 2 cycles of BLS (BLS1 and BLS2 phase) and 10 cycles of ACLS (ACLS1~10 phase) were conducted. Macrovascular circulation (CePP) and microvascular circulation using laser doppler flowmetry presented as a fraction of the baseline flow (f-LDF) were measured. Linear mixed model was used to measure median difference in CePP and f-LDF between groups.
Results:
A total of 22 pigs were analyzed. Early group showed higher and earlier peak of CePP and f-LDF compared to those of intermediate or delayed groups. There was a significant group by phase interaction in CePP where the early group showed a higher CePP on earlier phase. (Early group: median 38.2 [95% confidence intervals 30.7-50.5] mmHg at BLS 2 phase, intermediate group: 27.1 [14.1-35.7] mmHg at ACLS1 phase, late group: 12.2 [2.2-34.9] mmHg at ACLS 4 phase), p< 0.001). There was no significant group by phase interaction in f-LDF; however, there was a tendency of decreased peak and delayed reach to peak with time. (Early group: median 5.7 [95% confidence interval 3.5-7.8] at ACLS 2 phase, intermediate group: 3.6 [1.5-5.1] at ACLS 4 phase, late group: 2.2 [0.9-3.3] at ACLS 6 phase, p =0.93).
Conclusion:
In this VF cardiac arrest porcine study, the early administration of epinephrine group showed higher and earlier peak of CePP and f-LDF compared to those of the intermediate and delayed groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.