Work

Hands-On Times, Adherence to Recommendations and Variance in Execution among Three Different CPR Algorithms: A Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Simulator-Based Trial

Year: 2020

Type: article

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Alternative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) algorithms, introduced to improve outcomes after cardiac arrest, have so far not been compared in randomized trials with established CPR guidelines. METHODS: 286 physician teams were confronted with simulated cardiac arrests and randomly allocated to one of three versions of a CPR algorithm: (1) current International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guidelines ("ILCOR"), (2) the cardiocerebral resuscitation ("CCR") protocol (3 cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions with no ventilation), or (3) a local interpretation of the current guidelines ("Arnsberg", immediate insertion of a supraglottic airway and cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions). The primary endpoint was percentage of hands-on time. RESULTS: = 0.10 vs. "CCR"). "ILCOR" teams delivered fewer chest compressions and deviated more from allocated targets than "CCR" and "Arnsberg" teams. "CCR" teams demonstrated the least within-team and between-team variance. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to current ILCOR guidelines, two alternative CPR algorithms advocating cycles of uninterrupted chest compressions resulted in very similar hands-on times, fewer deviations from targets, and less within-team and between-team variance in execution.

Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217946