Effects of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training on mortality rates after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: An out-of-hospital cardiac arrest occurs at a rate of 67-170 cases per 100 000 inhabitants per year in Europe. The early recognition of the occurrence of a cardiac arrest, placing an emergency call, performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and performing defibrillation are the most important response measures. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effects of laypersons' CPR training with respect to CPR initiation rates, cardiovascular mortality rates, survival rate and the use of an automated external defibrillator. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The literature search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies, CINAHL, HBI, TESEO and NTX. Intervention studies and quasi-experimental studies in which CPR training interventions were performed will be included. We will exclude studies in which the participants do not meet the inclusion criteria, without a control group and in which the methodology of the intervention applied is unclear. There will be no restrictions on publication date or language of publication. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-RCT and quasi-experimental trials. Data analysis and synthesis will be performed using RevMan V.5.4.1 software. The findings will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required, as only secondary data will be used. The findings will be published in a journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022365288.

Ausencia de un patrón visual en los profesionales sanitarios durante el triaje de un incidente de múltiples víctimas evaluado a través de tecnología de seguimiento de la mirada (Tobbi Eye Tracking Technology®) / Lack of a standard visual attention pattern for use when health professionals triage mass casualty incidents is revealed by Tobbi eye tracking technology

No disponible

Comparative study of a simulated incident with multiple victims and immersive virtual reality.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of the study is to determine the efficiency in the execution of the START (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment) triage, comparing Virtual Reality (VR) to Clinical Simulation (CS) in a Mass Casualty Incident (MCI). The secondary objective is to determine the stress produced in the health professionals in the two situations described. MATERIALS: A comparative study on the efficiency and the stress during triage in a MSI was conducted. The basal and post levels of salivary α-amylase (sAA) activity were measured in all the participants before and after the simulation. RESULTS: The percentage of victims that were triaged correctly was 87.65% (SD = 8.3); 88.3% (SD = 9.65) for the Clinical Simulation with Actors (CSA) group and 87.2% (SD = 7.2) for the Virtual Reality Simulation (VRG) group, without any significant differences (p = 0.612) between both groups. The basal sAA was 103.26 (SD = 79.13) U/L with a significant increase (p < 0.001) with respect to the post-simulation levels (182.22, SD = 148.65 U/L). The increase of sAA was 80.70 (SD = 109.67) U/mL, being greater for the CSA group than the VRG group. CONCLUSION: The results show that virtual reality method is as efficient as clinical simulation for training on the execution of basic triage (START model). Also, based on the sAA results, we can attest that clinical simulation creates a more stressful training experience for the student, so that is should not be substituted by the use of virtual reality, although the latter could be used as a complementary activity.

Comparación de los sistemas de triaje META y START en un ejercicio simulado de múltiples víctimas / Comparison of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment system versus the Prehospital Advanced Triage Model in multiple-casualty events

Objetivo: El objetivo principal fue comparar dos sistemas de triaje (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatmet, START vs. Modelo Extrahospitalario de Triaje Avanzado, META) en un mismo incidente simulado de múltiples víctimas (IMV). Los objetivos secundarios fueron analizar los tiempos y el orden de evacuación, y la adecuación del tratamiento. Método: Ensayo aleatorizado por conglomerados que incluyó 16 grupos de 4 miembros asignados al sistema de triaje START o META en un ejercicio simulado de gestión a las víctimas de un accidente aéreo. Se recogieron los tiempos y el orden de evacuación, y la adecuación del tratamiento. Resultados: El tiempo de evacuación total fue de 48 min 39 s (DE 15 min 52 s) en el grupo START y de 48 min 4 s (DE 17 min 21 s) en el grupo META (p = 0,829). Los pacientes con necesidad de atención inmediata se evacuaron más rápidamente en el grupo META que en el START, tanto en el grupo completo (31 min 36 s [DE 8 min 27 s] vs 41 min 6 s [DE 10 min 39s ]; p = 0,024) como en los que además precisaban tratamiento quirúrgico urgente (24 min 12 s [DE 4 min] vs 44 min 49 s [DE 8 min 36 s]; p = 0,001). El orden de evacuación de pacientes fue: los de necesidad de atención inmediata en las 19 primeras posiciones (14 de 19) y de atención inmediata con prioridad quirúrgica en las 14 primeras posiciones (5 de 14) en el grupo START; y los de necesidad de atención inmediata en las 14 primeras posiciones (14 de 14) y de atención inmediata y con prioridad quirúrgica en las 7 primeras posiciones (5 de 7) en el grupo META. La frecuencia de tratamiento adecuado fue de un 92% en el caso del META y de un 63% en el caso del START (p = 0,023). Conclusiones: El triaje META, en comparación con el START, podría mejorar los tiempos extrahospitalarios y el orden de evacuación de los pacientes, especialmente en el caso de aquellos con necesidad de atención inmediata y de atención inmediata con prioridad quirúrgica, así como la adecuación del tratamiento, en los IMV

Objectives: The main purpose of this simulation of a multiple-casualty event was to compare the performance of 2 triage methods: the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) system and the Prehospital Advanced Triage Model (META in its Spanish acronym). The secondary objectives were to analyze times, order of evacuations, and appropriateness of treatments. Methods: Cluster randomized trial that included 16 groups assigned to use either the START system or the META for managing casualties in a simulated event (an airline crash). Each group had 4 members. We recorded times, order of evacuation, and appropriateness of treatment. Results: The mean (SD) evacuation time was 48 minutes and 39 seconds (15 minutes, 52 seconds) in the START arm and 48 minutes and 4 seconds (17 minutes, 21 seconds) in the META arm (P=.829). The patients with greatest need of immediate care were evacuated more quickly in the META arm (31 minutes and 36 seconds [8 minutes, 27 seconds]) than in the START arm (41 minutes and 6 seconds [10 minutes, 39 seconds]) (P=.024). Evacuation of the subgroup of patients requiring emergency surgery was also faster in the META arm (24 minutes and 12 seconds [4 minutes] than in the START arm (44 minutes and 49 seconds [8 minutes, 36 seconds]) (P=.001). Analysis of the order of evacuation under the 2 triage systems revealed that 14 of the first 19 patients evacuated required immediate medical care and 5 of the first 14 evacuated required priority surgical treatment in the START arm. In the META arm, all of the first 14 patients evacuated required immediate medical care and 5 of the first 7 patients evacuated required priority surgical treatment. The rate of appropriate treatment was 92% in the META arm and 63% in the START arm (P=.023). Conclusions: Use of the META system might improve prehospital times and the order of evacuation of patients, particularly patients who need immediate medical care or urgent surgery. The META might also increase the likelihood of appropriate treatment in multiple-casualty events

Comparison of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment system versus the Prehospital Advanced Triage Model in multiple-casualty events. / Comparación de los sistemas de triaje META y START en un ejercicio simulado de múltiples víctimas.

OBJECTIVES: . The main purpose of this simulation of a multiple-casualty event was to compare the performance of 2 triage methods: the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) system and the Prehospital Advanced Triage Model (META in its Spanish acronym). The secondary objectives were to analyze times, order of evacuations, and appropriateness of treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cluster randomized trial that included 16 groups assigned to use either the START system or the META for managing casualties in a simulated event (an airline crash). Each group had 4 members. We recorded times, order of evacuation, and appropriateness of treatment. RESULTS: The mean (SD) evacuation time was 48 minutes and 39 seconds (15 minutes, 52 seconds) in the START arm and 48 minutes and 4 seconds (17 minutes, 21 seconds) in the META arm (P=.829). The patients with greatest need of immediate care were evacuated more quickly in the META arm (31 minutes and 36 seconds [8 minutes, 27 seconds]) than in the START arm (41 minutes and 6 seconds [10 minutes, 39 seconds]) (P=.024). Evacuation of the subgroup of patients requiring emergency surgery was also faster in the META arm (24 minutes and 12 seconds [4 minutes] than in the START arm (44 minutes and 49 seconds [8 minutes, 36 seconds]) (P=.001). Analysis of the order of evacuation under the 2 triage systems revealed that 14 of the first 19 patients evacuated required immediate medical care and 5 of the first 14 evacuated required priority surgical treatment in the START arm. In the META arm, all of the first 14 patients evacuated required immediate medical care and 5 of the first 7 patients evacuated required priority surgical treatment. The rate of appropriate treatment was 92% in the META arm and 63% in the START arm (P=.023). CONCLUSION: Use of the META system might improve prehospital times and the order of evacuation of patients, particularly patients who need immediate medical care or urgent surgery. The META might also increase the likelihood of appropriate treatment in multiple-casualty events.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo principal fue comparar dos sistemas de triaje (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatmet, START vs. Modelo Extrahospitalario de Triaje Avanzado, META) en un mismo incidente simulado de múltiples víctimas (IMV). Los objetivos secundarios fueron analizar los tiempos y el orden de evacuación, y la adecuación del tratamiento. METODO: Ensayo aleatorizado por conglomerados que incluyó 16 grupos de 4 miembros asignados al sistema de triaje START o META en un ejercicio simulado de gestión a las víctimas de un accidente aéreo. Se recogieron los tiempos y el orden de evacuación, y la adecuación del tratamiento. RESULTADOS: El tiempo de evacuación total fue de 48 min 39 s (DE 15 min 52 s) en el grupo START y de 48 min 4 s (DE 17 min 21 s) en el grupo META (p = 0,829). Los pacientes con necesidad de atención inmediata se evacuaron más rápidamente en el grupo META que en el START, tanto en el grupo completo (31 min 36 s [DE 8 min 27 s] vs 41 min 6 s [DE 10 min 39s ]; p = 0,024) como en los que además precisaban tratamiento quirúrgico urgente (24 min 12 s [DE 4 min] vs 44 min 49 s [DE 8 min 36 s]; p = 0,001). El orden de evacuación de pacientes fue: los de necesidad de atención inmediata en las 19 primeras posiciones (14 de 19) y de atención inmediata con prioridad quirúrgica en las 14 primeras posiciones (5 de 14) en el grupo START; y los de necesidad de atención inmediata en las 14 primeras posiciones (14 de 14) y de atención inmediata y con prioridad quirúrgica en las 7 primeras posiciones (5 de 7) en el grupo META. La frecuencia de tratamiento adecuado fue de un 92% en el caso del META y de un 63% en el caso del START (p = 0,023). CONCLUSIONES: El triaje META, en comparación con el START, podría mejorar los tiempos extrahospitalarios y el orden de evacuación de los pacientes, especialmente en el caso de aquellos con necesidad de atención inmediata y de atención inmediata con prioridad quirúrgica, así como la adecuación del tratamiento, en los IMV.