We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Interactive videoconferencing versus audio telephone calls for dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation using the ALERT algorithm: a randomized trial.
European Journal of Emergency Medicine : Official Journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine 2016 December
OBJECTIVES: The ALERT algorithm, a telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) protocol, has been shown to help bystanders initiate CPR. Mobile phone communications may play a role in emergency calls and improve dispatchers' understanding of the rescuer's situation. However, there is currently no validated protocol for videoconference-assisted CPR (v-CPR). We initiated this study to validate an original protocol of v-CPR and to evaluate the potential benefit in comparison with classical telephone-CPR (t-CPR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an algorithm for v-CPR, adapted from the ALERT t-CPR protocol. A total of 180 students were recruited from secondary school and assigned randomly either to t-CPR or to v-CPR. A manikin was used to evaluate CPR performance.
RESULTS: The mean chest compression rate was higher in the v-CPR group (v-CPR: 110±16 vs. t-CPR: 86±28; P<0.0001), whereas depth was comparable between both groups (v-CPR: 48±13 vs. t-CPR: 47±16 mm; P=0.64). Hand positioning was correct in 91.7% with v-CPR, but only 68% with t-CPR (P=0.001). There was almost no 'hands-off' period in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 0 (0-0.4) vs. t-CPR: 7 (0-25.5) s; P<0.0001], but the median no-flow time was increased in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 146 (128-173.5) vs. t-CPR: 122 (105-143.5) s, P<0.0001]. The overall score of CPR performance was improved in the v-CPR group (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The v-CPR protocol allows bystanders to reach compression rates and depths close to guidelines and to reduce 'hands-off' events during CPR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an algorithm for v-CPR, adapted from the ALERT t-CPR protocol. A total of 180 students were recruited from secondary school and assigned randomly either to t-CPR or to v-CPR. A manikin was used to evaluate CPR performance.
RESULTS: The mean chest compression rate was higher in the v-CPR group (v-CPR: 110±16 vs. t-CPR: 86±28; P<0.0001), whereas depth was comparable between both groups (v-CPR: 48±13 vs. t-CPR: 47±16 mm; P=0.64). Hand positioning was correct in 91.7% with v-CPR, but only 68% with t-CPR (P=0.001). There was almost no 'hands-off' period in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 0 (0-0.4) vs. t-CPR: 7 (0-25.5) s; P<0.0001], but the median no-flow time was increased in the v-CPR group [v-CPR: 146 (128-173.5) vs. t-CPR: 122 (105-143.5) s, P<0.0001]. The overall score of CPR performance was improved in the v-CPR group (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The v-CPR protocol allows bystanders to reach compression rates and depths close to guidelines and to reduce 'hands-off' events during CPR.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app