Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376849›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2017

Effect of an interactive cardiopulmonary resuscitation assist device with an automated external defibrillator synchronised with a ventilator on the CPR performance of emergency medical service staff: a randomised simulation study.

Rainer Nitzschke, Christoph Doehn, Jan F Kersten, Julian Blanz, Tobias J Kalwa, Norman A Scotti, Jens C Kubitz

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rainer NitzschkeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. r.nitzschke@uke.de.
Christoph DoehnDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Jan F KerstenDepartment of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Julian BlanzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Tobias J KalwaWEINMANN Emergency Medical Technology, Hamburg, Germany.
Norman A ScottiWEINMANN Emergency Medical Technology, Hamburg, Germany.
Jens C KubitzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present study evaluates whether the quality of advanced cardiac life support (ALS) is improved with an interactive prototype assist device. This device consists of an automated external defibrillator linked to a ventilator and provides synchronised visual and acoustic instructions for guidance through the ALS algorithm and assistance for face-mask ventilations.

methodsWe compared the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality of emergency medical system (EMS) staff members using the study device or standard equipment in a mannequin simulation study with a prospective, controlled, randomised cross-over study design. Main outcome was the effect of the study device compared to the standard equipment and the effect of the number of prior ALS trainings of the EMS staff on the CPR quality. Data were analysed using analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and binary logistic regression, accounting for the study design.

resultsIn 106 simulations of 56 two-person rescuer teams, the mean hands-off time was 24.5% with study equipment and 23.5% with standard equipment (Difference 1.0% (95% CI: -0.4 to 2.5%); p = 0.156). With both types of equipment, the hands-off time decreased with an increasing cumulative number of previous CPR trainings (p = 0.042). The study equipment reduced the mean time until administration of adrenaline (epinephrine) by 23 s (p = 0.003) and that of amiodarone by 17 s (p = 0.016). It also increased the mean number of changes in the person doing chest compressions (0.6 per simulation; p < 0.001) and decreased the mean number of chest compressions (2.8 per minute; p = 0.022) and the mean number of ventilations (1.8 per minute; p < 0.001). The chance of administering amiodarone at the appropriate time was higher, with an odds ratio of 4.15, with the use of the study equipment CPR.com compared to the standard equipment (p = 0.004). With an increasing number of prior CPR trainings, the time intervals in the ALS algorithm until the defibrillations decreased with standard equipment but increased with the study device.

conclusionsEMS staff with limited training in CPR profit from guidance through the ALS algorithm by the study device. However, the study device somehow reduced the ALS quality of well-trained rescuers and thus can only be recommended for ALS provider with limited experience.

Indexed as

DefibrillatorsVentilators, MechanicalAdultAlgorithmsCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCross-Over StudiesEmergency Medical ServicesFemaleHumansMaleManikinsMasksProspective StudiesSimulation TrainingYoung AdultAdvanced life supportCardiopulmonary resuscitationCPR assist devicesEducation and simulationEmergency medical service

Identifiers

PMID28376849
PMCPMC5379649
OpenAlexW2604939816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.