A comparison of commercially available compression feedback devices in novice and experienced healthcare practitioners: A prospective randomized simulation study

Abstract

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.

Survival to intensive care unit discharge among in‐hospital cardiac arrest patients by applying audiovisual feedback device

“… 7 , 8 Several clinical and simulation studies have reported improved quality of compression components using AVF devices. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 Furthermore, both the American Heart Association and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation have issued cautious recommendations to support the use of AVF equipment. 16 , 17 , 18…”

“…7,8 Several clinical and simulation studies have reported improved quality of compression components using AVF devices. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Furthermore, both the American Heart Association and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation have issued cautious recommendations to support the use of AVF equipment. [16][17][18] The AVF devices can be categorized as devices related or unrelated to automated external defibrillators (AEDs).…”

“…They measure CPR performance in real time and provide audiovisual information to guide rescuers to reach target depth and rate 7,8 . Several clinical and simulation studies have reported improved quality of compression components using AVF devices 9–15 . Furthermore, both the American Heart Association and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation have issued cautious recommendations to support the use of AVF equipment 16–18 …”

Real-time audio-visual feedback with handheld nonautomated external defibrillator devices during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis

“…The reliant technology ranges in complexity from a metronome to tensile springs, accelerometers, pressure sensors, and triaxial magnetic sensing [ Table 1 ]. [ 3 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ] Feedback may be given in audio, visual, or tactile format. Stand-alone AVF devices provide benefits in cost and simplicity, making them potentially useful for applications both in-and outside of hospital settings.…”

“…Data comparing free-standing non-AED AVF devices head-to-head are far fewer,[ 42 50 68 69 70 71 72 ] and which devices display the highest performance remains unclear. The objective of this project is to address the following research question: in patients with IHCA (population), does chest compression performed with a free-standing non-AED AVF device as compared to standard manual chest compressions (comparison) result in improved outcomes including sustained ROSC, and survival to ICU and survival to hospital discharge (outcomes).…”