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
. 2024 Feb 26;17(1):26.
doi: 10.1186/s12245-024-00611-7.

Impact of teaching on use of mechanical chest compression devices: a simulation-based trial

Richard Steffen  1 , Simon Burri  1 , Fredy-Michel Roten  1   2 , Markus Huber  1 , Jürgen Knapp  3   4
Affiliations

Impact of teaching on use of mechanical chest compression devices: a simulation-based trial

Richard Steffen et al. Int J Emerg Med. .

Abstract

Background: The use of mechanical chest compression devices on patients in cardiac arrest has not shown benefits in previous trials. This is surprising, given that these devices can deliver consistently high-quality chest compressions without interruption. It is possible that this discrepancy is due to the no-flow time (NFT) during the application of the device. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate a reduction in no-flow time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with mechanical chest compression devices following 10 min of structured training in novices.

Methods: 270 medical students were recruited for the study. The participants were divided as a convenience sample into two groups. Both groups were instructed in how to use the device according to the manufacturer's specifications. The control group trained in teams of three, according to their own needs, to familiarise themselves with the device. The intervention group received 10 min of structured team training, also in teams of three. The participants then had to go through a CPR scenario in an ad-hoc team of three, in order to evaluate the training effect.

Results: The median NFT was 26.0 s (IQR: 20.0-30.0) in the intervention group and 37.0 s (IQR: 29.0-42.0) in the control group (p < 0.001). In a follow-up examination of the intervention group four months after the training, the NFT was 34.5 s (IQR: 24.0-45.8). This represented a significant deterioration (p = 0.015) and was at the same level as the control group immediately after training (p = 0.650). The position of the compression stamp did not differ significantly between the groups. Groups that lifted the manikin to position the backboard achieved an NFT of 35.0 s (IQR: 27.5-42.0), compared to 41.0 s (IQR: 36.5-50.5) for the groups that turned the manikin to the side (p = 0.074).

Conclusions: This simulation-based study demonstrated that structured training can significantly reduce the no-flow time when using mechanical resuscitation devices, even in ad-hoc teams. However, this benefit seems to be short-lived: after four months no effect could be detected.

Keywords: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Mechanical chest compression devices; Medical education; Simulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wyckoff MH, Greif R, Morley PT, Ng KC, Olasveengen TM, Singletary EM, Soar J, Cheng A, Drennan IR, Liley HG, et al. 2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment recommendations: Summary from the Basic Life support; Advanced Life support; Pediatric Life support; neonatal life support; education, implementation, and teams; and First Aid Task forces. Circulation. 2022;146(25):e483–e557. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001095. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esibov A, Banville I, Chapman FW, Boomars R, Box M, Rubertsson S. Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial. Resuscitation. 2015;91:116–21. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.02.028. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, Östlund O, Silfverstolpe J, Lichtveld RA, Boomars R, Ahlstedt B, Skoog G, Kastberg R, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(1):53–61. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282538. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wik L, Olsen JA, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M, Brouwer MA, Westfall M, Souders CM, Malzer R, van Grunsven PM, et al. Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation. 2014;85(6):741–8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.03.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gates S, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, Lamb SE, Slowther AM, Woollard M, Carson A, et al. Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(11):1–176. doi: 10.3310/hta21110. - DOI - PMC - PubMed