ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a suggested technique for laypeople facing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, it is difficult performing high-quality CPR until emergency medical services arrival with this technique. We aimed to verify whether incorporating intentional interruptions of different frequency and duration increases laypeople's CPR quality during an 8-minute scenario compared with compression-only CPR. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized manikin study selecting participants from 2154 consecutive laypeople who followed a basic life support/automatic external defibrillation course. People who achieved high-quality CPR in 1-minute test on a computerized manikin were asked to participate. Five hundred seventy-six were enrolled, and 59 were later excluded for technical reasons or incorrect test recording. Participants were randomized in an 8-minute OHCA scenario using 3 CPR protocols (30 compressions and 2-second pause, 30c2s; 50 compressions and 5-second pause, 50c5s; 100 compressions and 10-second pause, 100c10s) or compression-only technique. The main outcome was the percentage of chest compressions with adequate depth. RESULTS: Five hundred seventeen participants were evaluated. There was a statistically significant difference regarding the percentage of compressions with correct depth among the groups (30c2s, 96%; 50c5s, 96%; 100c10s, 92%; compression only, 79%; P = 0.006). Post hoc comparison showed a significant difference for 30c2s (P = 0.023) and for 50c5s (P = 0.003) versus compression only. Regarding secondary outcome, there were a higher chest compression fraction in the compression-only group and a higher rate of pauses longer than 10 seconds in the 100c10s. CONCLUSIONS: In a simulated OHCA, 30c2s and 50c5s protocols were characterized by a higher rate of chest compressions with correct depth than compression only. This could have practical consequences in laypeople CPR training and recommendations.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632500.
Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Humans , Manikins , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is one of the leading causes of death in industrialised countries. Survival depends on prompt identification of cardiac arrest and on the quality and timing of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation. For laypeople, there has been a growing interest on hands-only CPR, meaning continuous chest compression without interruption to perform ventilations. It has been demonstrated that intentional interruptions in hands-only CPR can increase its quality. The aim of this randomised trial is to compare three CPR protocols performed with different intentional interruptions with hands-only CPR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective randomised trial performed in eight training centres. Laypeople who passed a basic life support course will be randomised to one of the four CPR protocols in an 8 min simulated cardiac arrest scenario on a manikin: (1) 30 compressions and 2 s pause; (2) 50 compressions and 5 s pause; (3) 100 compressions and 10 s pause; (4) hands-only. The calculated sample size is 552 people. The primary outcome is the percentage of chest compression performed with correct depth evaluated by a computerised feedback system (Laerdal QCPR). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: . Due to the nature of the study, we obtained a waiver from the Ethics Committee (IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy). All participants will sign an informed consent form before randomisation. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journal. The data collected will also be made available in a public data repository. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02632500.
