Abstract
Background: The most recent international guidelines recommended support training of chest compression (CC) using feedback devices. This study aimed to compare the training efficacy of a simplified feedback trainer with the traditional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) simulator in CPR training.Methods: A total of 60 soldiers were randomly allocated into three groups equally, trained with a simplified external cardiac massage (ECM) trainer named Soul SheathTM (SS) (SS group), a Resusci Anne manikin (RA group), or traditional simulation training with instructor feedback, respectively. After 7 days of training, the CPR skills were tested blindly in a 2-min assessment session. The primary outcome was the proportion of effective CC, and the secondary outcome included CC rate, depth, compression position, and extent of the release.Results: The percentage of effective CC achieved in the SS group was comparable with the RA group (77.0 ± 15.52 vs. 77.5 ± 10.73%, p = 0.922), and significantly higher than that in the control group (77.0 ± 15.52 vs. 66.8 ± 16.87%, p = 0.037). Both the SS and RA groups showed better CC performance than the control group in terms of CC rate (SS group vs. control group, P = 0.032 and RA group vs. control group, P = 0.026), the proportion of shallow CC (SS group vs. control group, P = 0.011 and RA group vs. control group, P = 0.017). No difference between the SS group and RA group was found in all the CC parameters.Conclusions: The simplified ECM trainer (SS) provides a similar efficacy to the traditional manikin simulator with feedback in CC training to improve the quality of CPR skills.
Highlights
The quality of chest compression (CC) is the primary factor for “high-quality” cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after cardiac arrest [1]
The percentage of effective CC achieved in the Soul SheathTM (SS) group was comparable with the Resusci Anne (RA) group (77.0 ± 15.52 vs. 77.5 ± 10.73%, p = 0.922), and significantly higher than that in the control group (77.0 ± 15.52 vs. 66.8 ± 16.87%, p = 0.037)
No difference between the SS group and RA group was found in all the CC parameters
Summary
The quality of chest compression (CC) is the primary factor for “high-quality” cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after cardiac arrest [1]. Numerous clinical evidence has already proved that shallow CC, incomplete release, and inappropriate CC rate might result in poor coronary perfusion and low cardiac output. These inappropriate manipulations might be associated with a decrease in the survival rate of 30% or more after cardiac arrest [3,4,5,6]. The over-deep compression was not emphasized in the new guidelines of AHA CPR, a compression depth deeper than 6 cm may develop other complications, such as fracture of the ribs, pneumothorax, and hemothorax [7,8,9] It is challenging but essential for rescuers to reach an ideal range of CC during CPR. This study aimed to compare the training efficacy of a simplified feedback trainer with the traditional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) simulator in CPR training
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
