A comparison of commercially available compression feedback devices in novice and experienced healthcare practitioners: A prospective randomized simulation study. Issue 3 (22nd November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Davis, Terri L.; Hoffman, Adam; Vahedian‐Azimi, Amir; Brewer, Kori L.; Miller, Andrew C.
• Is Part Of: Medical devices & sensors. Volume 1:Issue 3(2018)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2018-11-22
• Subjects: cardiopulmonary resuscitation -- chest compression -- medical device -- simulation -- technology; Medical instruments and apparatus -- Periodicals; Biomedical engineering -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1002/mds3.10020
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2573-802X

Abstract

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.