Providers with Limited Experience Perform Better in Advanced Life Support with Assistance Using an Interactive Device with an Automated External Defibrillator Linked to a Ventilator

Abstract

BackgroundMedical teams with limited experience in performing advanced life support (ALS) or with a low frequency of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) while on duty, often have difficulty complying with CPR guidelines. ObjectiveThis study evaluated whether the quality of CPR of trained medical students, who served as an example of teams with limited experience in ALS, could be improved with device assistance. The primary outcome was the hands-off time (i.e., the percentage of the entire CPR time without chest compressions). The secondary outcome was seven time intervals, which should be as short as possible, and the quality of ventilations and chest compressions on the mannequin. MethodsWe compared standard CPR equipment to an interactive device with visual and acoustic instructions for ALS workflow measures to guide briefly trained medical students through the ALS algorithm in a full-scale mannequin simulation study with a randomized crossover study design. The study equipment consisted of an automatic external defibrillator and ventilator that were electronically linked and communicating as a single system. Included were regular medical students in the third to sixth years of medical school of one class who provided written informed consent for voluntary participation and for the analysis of their CPR performance data. No exclusion criteria were applied. For statistical measures of evaluation we used an analysis of variance for crossover trials accounting for treatment effect, sequence effect, and carry-over effect, with adjustment for prior practical experience of the participants. ResultsForty-two medical students participated in 21 CPR sessions, each using the standard and study equipment. Regarding the primary end point, the study equipment reduced the hands-off time from 40.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 36.9–43.4%) to 35.6% (95% CI 32.4–38.9%, p = 0.031) compared with the standard equipment. Within the prespecified secondary end points, study equipment reduced the time interval until the first rescuer changeover from 273 s (95% CI 244–302 s) to 223 s (95% CI 194–253 s, p = 0.001) and increased the percentage of ventilations with a correct tidal volume of 400–600 mL from 34.3% (95% CI 19.0–49.6%) to 60.9% (95% CI 45.6–76.2%, p = 0.018). ConclusionsThe assist device increased the rescuers' CPR quality. CPR providers with limited experience or a limited frequency of CPR performance (i.e., rural Emergency Medical Services crew) may potentially benefit from this assist device.