Quality of audio-assisted versus video-assisted dispatcher-instructed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

AimThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effect of video-assistance and audio-assistance on quality of dispatcher-instructed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DI-CPR) for bystanders. MethodsFive databases were searched, including PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Scopus and NIH clinical trial, to find randomized control trials published before June 2017. Qualitative analysis and meta-analysis were undertaken to examine the difference between the quality of video-instructed and audio-instructed dispatcher-instructed bystander CPR. ResultsThe database search yielded 929 records, resulting in the inclusion of 9 relevant articles in this study. Of these, 6 were included in the meta-analysis. Initiation of chest compressions was slower in the video-instructed group than in the audio-instructed group (median delay 31.5 s; 95% CI: 10.94–52.09). The difference in the number of chest compressions per minute between the groups was 19.9 (95% CI: 10.50–29.38) with significantly faster compressions in the video-instructed group than in the audio-instructed group (104.8 vs. 80.6). The odds ratio (OR) for correct hand positioning was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.53–1.30) when comparing the audio-instructed and video-instructed groups. The differences in chest compression depth (mm) and time to first ventilation (seconds) between the video-instructed group and audio-instructed group were 1.6 mm (95% CI: −8.75, 5.55) and 7.5 s (95% CI: −56.84, 71.80), respectively. ConclusionsVideo-instructed DI-CPR significantly improved the chest compression rate compared to the audio-instructed method, and a trend for correctness of hand position was also observed. However, this method caused a delay in the commencement of bystander-initiated CPR in the simulation setting.