Background
Guidelines note the importance of chest compression components including rate, depth, no‐flow time and chest recoil. Audio‐visual feedback (AVF) technologies are included in the American Heart Association's training videos and loosely recommended by the 2015 guidelines.
Objective
To compare the effectiveness of 3 compression AVF devices compared to standard compressions.
Methods
Prospective simulation study of 118 subjects randomized into 4 groups: TrueCPR™, Pocket CPR™, CPR RsQ Assist® and Control. The SimMan® 3G simulator recorded compression total, rate, depth, recoil, no‐flow time and flow fraction during 6 min of continuous compressions.
Results
Compression number and rate were similar, and depth was poor across all groups, but TrueCPR™ and PocketCPR™ demonstrated statically (not clinically) significant improvements compared to control (p = 0.024) and CPR RsQ Assist® groups (p < 0.001). PocketCPR™ had the greatest % compressions with sufficient depth, while TrueCPR™ had the greatest % with adequate rate. Controls outperformed all devices in no‐flow time (p < 0.001) and flow fraction (p < 0.001). Full recoil was not improved by device use (p = 0.31).
Conclusion
In this simulation study, PocketCPR™ was the highest performing AVF device. AVF use improved mean compression depth and per cent compressions with adequate rate or depth. Devices underperformed for recoil, no‐flow time and flow fraction. Metronome components most benefited novice providers. Further study is warranted before recommending AVF use in routine clinical practice.
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.