Do mechanical CPR feedback devices improve the quality of chest compressions on simulated patients in a hospital bed

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine if mechanical CPR feedback devices improve the quality of external chest compressions during simulated basic life support on a hospital bed.Methodology: Twenty-one (n = 21) staff from a general hospital were recruited to take part in this randomised crossover trial of three commercial CPR devices, manufactured by, CPREzy, Zoll and Leardal. All participants were BLS certified within the previous 24months. Staffs were asked to deliver 150 chest compressions with each device to a simulated patient over a 2 min period in a random order. A 2 min recovery period was allowed between each device.Results: The use of a device over no adjunct did not improve the compression depth (38–51 mm). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.134).One device was found to consistently deliver low compressions compared to all other devices. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001).There was no statistical significant difference (p = 0.258) found between the four devices when determining compression effectiveness (defined as compression depth vs. incomplete release vs. incorrect hand placement).There was no statistical significant difference between the device used and the operators ability to deliver at a rate of 150 compressions in 2 min (p = 0.134).Preference ranking of devices by candidates did show significant differences (p = 0.000) with no device being preferred to each of the commercial units.Conclusions: This study appears to demonstrate that Healthcare professionals who hold current BLS certification perform as efficiently without a device as with any of the commercial adjuncts tested. The question that needs to be asked is “has the industry engineered a product to solve a problem that does not exist?”The results from this study conflict with other studies and will require further research to provide definitive outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study was to determine if mechanical CPR feedback devices improve the quality of external chest compressions during simulated basic life support on a hospital bed. Methodology: Twenty-one (n = 21) staff from a general hospital were recruited to take part in this randomised crossover trial of three commercial CPR devices, manufactured by, CPREzy, Zoll and Leardal. All participants were BLS certified within the previous 24months. Staffs were asked to deliver 150 chest compressions with each device to a simulated patient over a 2 min period in a random order. A 2 min recovery period was allowed between each device. Results: The use of a device over no adjunct did not improve the compression depth (38–51 mm). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.134). One device was found to consistently deliver low compressions compared to all other devices. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001). There was no statistical significant difference (p = 0.258) found between the four devices when determining compression effectiveness (defined as compression depth vs. incomplete release vs. incorrect hand placement). There was no statistical significant difference between the device used and the operators ability to deliver at a rate of 150 compressions in 2 min (p = 0.134). Preference ranking of devices by candidates did show significant differences (p = 0.000) with no device being preferred to each of the commercial units. Conclusions: This study appears to demonstrate that Healthcare professionals who hold current BLS certification perform as efficiently without a device as with any of the commercial adjuncts tested. The question that needs to be asked is “has the industry engineered a product to solve a problem that does not exist?” The results from this study conflict with other studies and will require further research to provide definitive outcomes.