Can the British Heart Foundation PocketCPR application improve the performance of chest compressions during bystander resuscitation: A randomised crossover manikin study

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether the British Heart Foundation PocketCPR training application can improve the depth and rate of chest compression and therefore be confidently recommended for bystander use. A total of 118 candidates were recruited into a randomised crossover manikin trial. Each candidate performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 2 min without instruction or performed chest compressions using the PocketCPR application. Candidates then performed a further 2 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation within the opposite arm. The number of chest compressions performed improved when PocketCPR was used compared to chest compressions when it was not (44.28% vs 40.57%, p < 0.001). The number of chest compressions performed to the required depth was higher in the PocketCPR group (90.86 vs 66.26). The British Heart Foundation PocketCPR application improved the percentage of chest compressions that were performed to the required depth. Despite this, more work is required in order to develop a feedback device that can improve bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation without creating delay.

Effect of smart devices on the quality of CPR training: A systematic review

“…9,10,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Study characteristics Table 1shows the characteristics of the selected studies. The studies included five RCTs (45%), 9,16,19,22,23 five RCOTs (45%), 10,15,18,20,21 and an RT (9%). 17 Eight of 11 studies (73%) used smartphones 9,10,15-20 and 3 studies (27%) [21][22][23] used smartwatches for their CPR training intervention.…”

“…Five RCTs/RTs (45%) were rated as 'of some concern' since they did not clearly comment on blinding to intervention. 9,16,17,19,22 Five RCOTs were rated as 'high' for this domain either due to insufficient rest time between experimental sessions 10,15,18,20 or due to lack of information on the resting period between experimental sessions. 21 Third, the 'bias due to missing outcome data' was measured.…”

“…All eleven studies (100%) were rated as 'low' for this domain as outcomes were evaluated with the use of manikins designed to measure CPR compression quality in accordance with pre-existing protocols. 9,10,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Fifth, 'bias in section of the reported results' was evaluated. Five RCOTs were rated as 'of some concern' in this domain since there was not enough information on how potential carry-over effects were addressed.…”

“…Five RCOTs were rated as 'of some concern' in this domain since there was not enough information on how potential carry-over effects were addressed. 10,15,18,20,21 Considering the significant between-study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not performed. The I 2 s of chest compression rate, depth and proportion of adequate chest compressions between the studies were 66%, 81% and 63%, respectively.…”

“…There have been various studies conducted to show the usefulness of smart devices as CPR feedback devices, but the results have been conflicting thus far. 9,10,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] This systematic review aimed to examine randomised trials to determine if smart devices used during CPR training could improve the quality of CPR. Additionally, we investigated what type of smart device, phone or watch, was more effective at improving CPR quality.…”