Evaluation of culture-specific popular music as a mental metronome for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised crossover trial. (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ho, Andrew Fu Wah; Liu, Zhenghong; Wah, Win; Fook-Chong, Stephanie; Pek, Pin Pin; Lo, Hong Yee; Teo, Rui Ming; Poon, Beng Hoong; Ng, Yih Yng; Ong, Marcus Eng Hock
• Is Part Of: Proceedings of Singapore healthcare. Volume 28:Number 3(2019)
• Page Start: 159
• Page End: 166
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: Cardiac arrest -- bystander -- cardiopulmonary resuscitation -- basic life support -- basic cardiac life support; Medical care -- Singapore -- Periodicals; Medical care; Singapore; Periodicals; 362.1095957
• DOI: 10.1177/2010105818820544
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2010-1058

Abstract

Introduction: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The use of certain songs as mental metronomes for CPR have been validated and recognised by contemporary guidelines. We hypothesise that the National Day song, Count on me Singapore (COMS CPR), is not inferior to standard 'one-and-two-and-three-and-four' counting (standard CPR) for timing CPR, in terms of the proportion of participants achieving the guideline compression rate of 100–120/minute. Methods: This was a prospective randomised crossover trial powered to demonstrate non-inferiority in the CPR rate. After a familiarisation session, volunteers were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A performed one cycle of standard CPR while group B performed one cycle of COMS CPR. Participants then crossed over to perform the other method. The Laerdal SkillReporter measured CPR quality. Four weeks later, participants attended a test scenario, using standard CPR or COMS CPR (randomly allocated). Results: Ninety subjects were recruited; 46 were randomly assigned to group A and 44 to group B. Baseline characteristics were similar; 41.1% of COMS CPR achieved 100–120/minute, versus 28.9% of standard CPR ( P =0.028). In mixed effects logistical regression, significantly more COMS CPR was performed at 100–120/minute compared to standard CPR (odds ratio 2.44, 95% confidence interval 1.01–5.9, P =0.047). The proportion of insufficient depth was higher in COMS CPR (80.59% vs. 68.01%, P <0.001). There were no differences in other aspects of CPR quality. There were no differences in CPR quality between standard CPR and COMS CPR during the follow-up. Conclusion: COMS CPR was not inferior in terms of the proportion of participants delivering a guideline-compliant rate of chest compression. COMS CPR may have applications to layman CPR education, such as in mass education events.