BACKGROUND Despite intensive research, cardiac arrest remains a leading cause of death. It is of paramount importance to undertake every possible effort to increase the overall quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and improve patient outcome. CPR initiated by a bystander is one of the key factors in survival of such an incident. Telephone-assisted CPR (T-CPR) has proved to be an effective measure in improving layperson resuscitation. OBJECTIVE We hypothesised that adding video-telephony to the emergency call (video-CPR, V-CPR) enhances the quality of layperson resuscitation. DESIGN This randomised controlled simulation trial was performed from July to August 2018. Laypersons were randomly assigned to video-assisted (V-CPR), telephone-assisted (T-CPR) or control (unassisted CPR) groups. Participants were instructed to perform first aid on a mannequin during a simulated cardiac arrest. SETTING This study was conducted in the Skills Lab of the University Hospital of Cologne. PARTICIPANTS One hundred and fifty healthy adult volunteers. INTERVENTION The participants received a smartphone to call emergency services, with Emergency Eye video-call in V-CPR group, and normal telephone functionality in the other groups. T-CPR and V-CPR groups received standardised CPR assistance via phone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Our primary endpoint was resuscitation quality, quantified by compression frequency and depth, and correct hand position. RESULTS Mean compression frequency of V-CPR group was 106.4 ± 11.7 min, T-CPR group 98.9 ± 12.3 min (NS), unassisted group 71.6 ± 32.3 min (P < 0.001). Mean compression depth was 55.4 ± 12.3 mm in V-CPR, 52.1 ± 13.3 mm in T-CPR (P < 0.001) and 52.9 ± 15.5 mm in unassisted (P < 0.001). Total percentage of correct chest compressions was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in V-CPR (82.6%), than T-CPR (75.4%) and unassisted (77.3%) groups. CONCLUSION V-CPR was shown to be superior to unassisted CPR, and was comparable to T-CPR. However, V-CPR leads to a significantly better hand position compared with the other study groups. V-CPR assistance resulted in volunteers performing chest compressions with more accurate compression depth. Despite reaching statistical significance, this may be of little clinical relevance. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03527771)

Background: If transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from an upper floor is indicated, the ideal CPR-method and evacuation route is unknown hitherto. We aimed to elaborate a strategy for evacuation of patients under ongoing CPR from an upper floor, comparing three different evacuation routes and manual and mechanical chest compressions. Methods: A CPR-training manikin recording CPR-quality was placed on the fifth floor and was evacuated to an ambulance via lift, turntable ladder, or staircase. Chest compressions were performed manually or with a mechanical CPR-device. Efficiency endpoints were compression depth and frequency, sufficiency of chest release, compared with European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines, and duration of the evacuation. Adverse outcomes were disconnection/dislocation of devices and hazards/accidents to the personnel.Results: For all evacuation routes, compression depth and frequency were significantly more compliant with ERCguidelines under mechanical CPR. Manual CPR was associated with considerable deviations from correct compression depth and frequency. Chest release only slightly differed between groups. Evacuation via lift under mechanical CPR was fastest and evacuation via turntable ladder under manual CPR was slowest. No device disconnections or accidents occurred, but hazard to personnel was perceived during evacuation via ladder under manual CPR. Conclusions:In this study, a mechanical CPR-device proved to deliver better CPR-quality during evacuation from an upper floor. If a lift accessible with a stretcher is available, this route should be preferred, regardless of manual or mechanical CPR. Turntable ladders can only be meaningfully used with mechanical CPR, otherwise CPR-quality is poor and hazard to the personnel is increased. Not all evacuation routes may be useable in a specific real-life scenario.