Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Feb 1;8(2):e019009.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019009.

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study

Keith Couper et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device.

Design: Randomised controlled manikin trial.

Setting: Large teaching hospital in the UK.

Participants: Twenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were health professionals with intermediate or advanced resuscitation training.

Interventions: Teams were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard mechanical chest compression device training or pit-crew device training. Training interventions lasted up to 1 h. Performance was measured immediately after training in a standardised simulated cardiac arrest scenario in which teams were required to deploy a mechanical chest compression device.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcome was chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and mechanical device deployment metrics, and non-technical skill performance. Outcomes were assessed using video recordings of the test scenario.

Results: In relation to the primary outcome of chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression, we found that pit-crew training was not superior to standard training (0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79) vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82), mean difference -0.01 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.03), P=0.572). There was also no difference between groups in performance in relation to any secondary outcome.

Conclusions: Pit-crew training, compared with standard training, did not improve team deployment of a mechanical chest device in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN43049287; Pre-results.

Keywords: adult intensive and critical care; clinical trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: KC, TQ, RL, JY and GDP report that their organisations have received funding from NIHR for clinical trials on the use of mechanical chest compression devices.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram.

References

    1. Couper K, Smyth M, Perkins GD. Mechanical devices for chest compression: to use or not to use? Curr Opin Crit Care 2015;21:188–94. 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000200 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, et al. . Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA 2005;293:299–304. 10.1001/jama.293.3.299 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gates S, Quinn T, Deakin CD, et al. . Mechanical chest compression for out of hospital cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 2015;94:91–7. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, et al. . Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:947–55. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61886-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Talikowska M, Tohira H, Finn J. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and patient survival outcome in cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 2015;96:66–77. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.036 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources