Short structured feedback training is equivalent to a mechanical feedback device in two-rescuer BLS: a randomised simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitation guidelines encourage the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices implying better outcomes after sudden cardiac arrest. Whether effective continuous feedback could also be given verbally by a second rescuer ("human feedback") has not been investigated yet. We, therefore, compared the effect of human feedback to a CPR feedback device. METHODS: In an open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial, we compared CPR performance of three groups of medical students in a two-rescuer scenario. Group "sCPR" was taught standard BLS without continuous feedback, serving as control. Group "mfCPR" was taught BLS with mechanical audio-visual feedback (HeartStart MRx with Q-CPR-Technology™). Group "hfCPR" was taught standard BLS with human feedback. Afterwards, 326 medical students performed two-rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8 min. CPR quality parameters, such as "effective compression ratio" (ECR: compressions with correct hand position, depth and complete decompression multiplied by flow-time fraction), and other compression, ventilation and time-related parameters were assessed for all groups. RESULTS: ECR was comparable between the hfCPR and the mfCPR group (0.33 vs. 0.35, p = 0.435). The hfCPR group needed less time until starting chest compressions (2 vs. 8 s, p < 0.001) and showed fewer incorrect decompressions (26 vs. 33 %, p = 0.044). On the other hand, absolute hands-off time was higher in the hfCPR group (67 vs. 60 s, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of CPR with human feedback or by using a mechanical audio-visual feedback device was similar. Further studies should investigate whether extended human feedback training could further increase CPR quality at comparable costs for training.

Characterisation of the vaginal Lactobacillus microbiota associated with preterm delivery.

The presence of an abnormal vaginal microflora in early pregnancy is a risk factor for preterm delivery. There is no investigation on vaginal flora dominated by lactic acid bacteria and possible association with preterm delivery. We assessed the dominant vaginal Lactobacillus species in healthy pregnant women in early pregnancy in relation to pregnancy outcome. We observed 111 low risk pregnant women with a normal vaginal microflora 11 + 0 to 14 + 0 weeks of pregnancy without subjective complaints. Vaginal smears were taken for the identification of lactobacilli using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE). Pregnancy outcome was recorded as term or preterm delivery (limit 36 + 6 weeks of gestation). The diversity of Lactobacillus species in term vs. preterm was the main outcome measure. L. iners alone was detected in 11 from 13 (85%) women who delivered preterm. By contrast, L. iners alone was detected in only 16 from 98 (16%) women who delivered at term (p < 0.001). Fifty six percent women that delivered at term and 8% women that delivered preterm had two or more vaginal Lactobacillus spp. at the same time. This study suggests that dominating L. iners alone detected in vaginal smears of healthy women in early pregnancy might be associated with preterm delivery.

Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality. METHODS: In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups. RESULTS: Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups. CONCLUSION: While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.