ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Impact of secondary anterior-posterior defibrillator pad placement on chest compression interruptions: a three-arm randomised manikin-based simulation study among Dutch ambulance teams.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest management prioritises effective treatment, with high-quality chest compressions and timely defibrillation being essential. While current European Resuscitation Council guidelines recommend sternal-apical defibrillator pad placement, alternative positions such as anterior-posterior (AP) are gaining interest. The integration of secondary AP pad placement with mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices (mCPR) remains underexplored. Methods: This randomised, simulation-based study, assessed the impact of AP pad placement on chest compression interruptions, comparing manual versus mCPR strategies among 45 ambulance teams in the Netherlands. Teams were randomised into three groups: manual chest compressions with AP pad application, sequential mCPR and AP pad application, or simultaneous mCPR and AP pad application. The primary outcome was the duration of chest compression interruptions; secondary outcomes included user-feasibility and pad placement accuracy. Results: Applying AP pads during manual compressions required 38.3 ± 13.3 s, resulting in 12.1 ± 6.0 s of interruptions. Sequential mCPR and AP pad application took 97.7 ± 23.7 s, with 51.7 ± 14.0 s of interruptions. Simultaneous application required 70.5 ± 16.1 s and 31.8 ± 12.3 s of interruptions. Pad placement accuracy was low: 0 % for sternal, 11 % for apical, 13 % for anterior and 2 % for posterior pads. Participants' confidence in pad placement did not correlate with accuracy. Conclusion: AP defibrillator pad placement during active mCPR presents significant challenges. Ambulance crews should assess the need for AP pads before initiating mCPR to minimise delays. The findings highlight substantial variability in pad placement, underscoring the need for standardised instructional guidelines and targeted training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.