Dataset Information

Efficacy of a five-minute compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation class compared to thirty-minute instruction among college students.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine if 5-minute compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCO-CPR) instruction is as effective as 30-minute instruction in improving participant knowledge and comfort with performing CCO-CPR as well as teaching CPR quality and responsiveness to an Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA).

Methods

A prospective randomized controlled trial of university undergraduates was performed. Participants were randomized to either a 5-minute (experimental) or 30-minute (control) CCO-CPR instruction class. Pre- and post-testing was performed with a written and simulation test. Measurements collected assessed rate and depth of compressions, time to call 911, and time to start chest compressions. Prior to instruction, subjects' baseline measurements of CPR performance were evaluated during a standardized sudden death scenario using a Laerdal Skillreporter^TM mannequin. The written test and scenario were repeated after either the five or 30 minute CCO-CPR instruction using the same outcome measures. Statistical tests of association for categorical variables were assessed using the chi-square test and the independent samples t-test was utilized for continuous variables. All tests were two-sided and the level of significance was set at α = 0.05.

Results

Among the 59 participants, 28 received 5 minutes of instruction and 31 received 30 minutes. Fifteen (25.4%) individuals reported prior CPR training. Post intervention, all measurements reached statistically significant improvements in each group but there was no difference between the two groups improvement in depth of compressions (experimental group: 41.8 mm, 95% CI 36.6-43.4 vs control group: 46.5 mm, 95% CI 40.9-48.3, p = 0.06), compressions per minute (114.3 cpm, 95% CI 105.5-122.0 vs 121.1 cpm, 95% CI 115.1-131.4, p = 0.10), time to starting chest compressions (13.5 vs 12.4 sec, p = 0.45), or time to calling 911 (8.34 vs 7.65 sec, p = 0.58). Further, there was a statistically significant improvement in participants that said they would probably or definitely perform CCO-CPR in real life after both interventions but no difference between the groups (100% of the experimental group and 93.5% of the control group p < 0.49).

Conclusion

Five-minute instruction is not inferior to 30-minute instruction at teaching undergraduate students how to perform quality bystander CCO-CPR.

SUBMITTER: Shende TC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244424 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Worldwide, millions of people die of sudden cardiac arrest every year. This is partly due to limited and sometimes ineffective bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The need for mouth-to-mouth contact, fear of causing harm, litigation, and the complexity of delivering CPR are the main deterrents. In view of this, the basic life support algorithm has been simplified and lay rescuers are encouraged to perform Hands-Only CPR.The objective of this study is to assess knowledge on and willingness to perform Hands-Only CPR among Malaysian college students and to determine the relationship between the two.In an online self-administered survey, college students responded to a questionnaire on demographics, exposure to CPR, knowledge on Hands-Only CPR, and their willingness to perform Hands-Only CPR in 5 different scenarios (family members or relatives, strangers, trauma victims, children, and elderly people).Data for 393 participants were analyzed. For knowledge, the mean score was 8.6 ± 3.2 and the median score was 9. In the sample, 27% of the respondents did not attend any CPR training before, citing that they were unsure where to attend the course. The knowledge score among those who attended CPR training (M = 3.6, S = 2.9) was significantly higher compared to those who did not (M = 6.7, S = 3.0). Out of the 393 participants, 67.7%, 55%, 37.4%, 45%, and 49.1% were willing to perform Hands-Only CPR on family members or relatives, strangers, trauma victims, children, and elderly people, respectively. There were significant associations (P < .001) between knowledge and willing to perform Hands-Only CPR on family members or relatives (OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.43, 1.43), strangers (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.21, 1.42), trauma victims (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.12, 1.31), children (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.19, 1.39), and elderly people (OR = 1.36 95% CI 1.25, 1.48).Based on this study, knowledge on Hands-Only CPR among local college students is not encouraging. Not many know where to attend such courses. There was significant association between knowledge and willingness to perform Hands-Only CPR.

Project description:New chest compression detection technology allows for the recording and graphical depiction of clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) chest compressions. The authors sought to determine the inter-rater reliability of chest compression pattern classifications by human raters. Agreement with automated chest compression classification was also evaluated by computer analysis.This was an analysis of chest compression patterns from cardiac arrest patients enrolled in the ongoing Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Continuous Chest Compressions Trial. Thirty CPR process files from patients in the trial were selected. Using written guidelines, research coordinators from each of eight participating ROC sites classified each chest compression pattern as 30:2 chest compressions, continuous chest compressions (CCC), or indeterminate. A computer algorithm for automated chest compression classification was also developed for each case. Inter-rater agreement between manual classifications was tested using Fleiss's kappa. The criterion standard was defined as the classification assigned by the majority of manual raters. Agreement between the automated classification and the criterion standard manual classifications was also tested.The majority of the eight raters classified 12 chest compression patterns as 30:2, 12 as CCC, and six as indeterminate. Inter-rater agreement between manual classifications of chest compression patterns was ? = 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.74). The automated computer algorithm classified chest compression patterns as 30:2 (n = 15), CCC (n = 12), and indeterminate (n = 3). Agreement between automated and criterion standard manual classifications was ? = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.95).In this study, good inter-rater agreement in the manual classification of CPR chest compression patterns was observed. Automated classification showed strong agreement with human ratings. These observations support the consistency of manual CPR pattern classification as well as the use of automated approaches to chest compression pattern analysis.

Project description:BackgroundActive compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with decreased intrathoracic pressure in the decompression phase can lead to improved haemodynamics compared with standard CPR. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of this intervention on survival with favourable neurological function after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.MethodsIn our randomised trial of 46 emergency medical service agencies (serving 2·3 million people) in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the USA, we assessed outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to Utstein guidelines. We provisionally enrolled patients to receive standard CPR or active compression-decompression CPR with augmented negative intrathoracic pressure (via an impedance-threshold device) with a computer-generated block randomisation weekly schedule in a one-to-one ratio. Adults (presumed age or age ≥18 years) who had a non-traumatic arrest of presumed cardiac cause and met initial and final selection criteria received designated CPR and were included in the final analyses. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological function (modified Rankin scale score of ≤3). All investigators apart from initial rescuers were masked to treatment group assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00189423.Findings2470 provisionally enrolled patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups. 813 (68%) of 1201 patients assigned to the standard CPR group (controls) and 840 (66%) of 1269 assigned to intervention CPR received designated CPR and were included in the final analyses. 47 (6%) of 813 controls survived to hospital discharge with favourable neurological function compared with 75 (9%) of 840 patients in the intervention group (odds ratio 1·58, 95% CI 1·07-2·36; p=0·019]. 74 (9%) of 840 patients survived to 1 year in the intervention group compared with 48 (6%) of 813 controls (p=0·03), with equivalent cognitive skills, disability ratings, and emotional-psychological statuses in both groups. The overall major adverse event rate did not differ between groups, but more patients had pulmonary oedema in the intervention group (94 [11%] of 840) than did controls (62 [7%] of 813; p=0·015).InterpretationOn the basis of our findings showing increased effectiveness and generalisability of the study intervention, active compression-decompression CPR with augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure should be considered as an alternative to standard CPR to increase long-term survival after cardiac arrest.FundingUS National Institutes of Health grant R44-HL065851-03, Advanced Circulatory Systems.