AMACE: Improving chest compressions. A prospective randomized study comparing a coaching technique with a monitor-defibrillator
Clanet, R.
AMACE: Improving chest compressions. A prospective randomized study comparing a coaching technique with a monitor-defibrillator - 2025.
27
Aims The effectiveness of chest compressions is essential in the event of cardiac arrest. We wanted to develop an on-site coaching method for chest compressions and compare it with the feedback provided by a monitor-defibrillator (MD). Materials and methods An algorithm was developed based on the recommendations. Communication materials were developed in collaboration with a university psychology laboratory. This method was compared with a MD (X Series®, Zoll®) using a Little Anne mannequin and QCPR software (Laerdal®) in a prospective, randomized, open-label, single-center study conducted in a Mobile Emergency and Resuscitation Service (SAMU). The overall quality of chest compressions (QCC) was chosen as the primary endpoint. Frequency, depth, and recoil were studied. Results Thirty-nine subjects were randomly assigned to 2 groups: MD (n = 19) and coaching (n = 20). The coaching group performed significantly better than the MD group on QCC (p = 0.01) and frequency (p = 0.001). There was no difference in depth (p = 0.93) or recoil (p = 0.08). The QCC in the coaching group rose from a median of 97% [87; 98] in the control phase to 99% [99; 99] after intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion The on-site coaching method we have developed shows encouraging results. A larger study (CADENCE) is currently underway to confirm these results.
AMACE: Improving chest compressions. A prospective randomized study comparing a coaching technique with a monitor-defibrillator - 2025.
27
Aims The effectiveness of chest compressions is essential in the event of cardiac arrest. We wanted to develop an on-site coaching method for chest compressions and compare it with the feedback provided by a monitor-defibrillator (MD). Materials and methods An algorithm was developed based on the recommendations. Communication materials were developed in collaboration with a university psychology laboratory. This method was compared with a MD (X Series®, Zoll®) using a Little Anne mannequin and QCPR software (Laerdal®) in a prospective, randomized, open-label, single-center study conducted in a Mobile Emergency and Resuscitation Service (SAMU). The overall quality of chest compressions (QCC) was chosen as the primary endpoint. Frequency, depth, and recoil were studied. Results Thirty-nine subjects were randomly assigned to 2 groups: MD (n = 19) and coaching (n = 20). The coaching group performed significantly better than the MD group on QCC (p = 0.01) and frequency (p = 0.001). There was no difference in depth (p = 0.93) or recoil (p = 0.08). The QCC in the coaching group rose from a median of 97% [87; 98] in the control phase to 99% [99; 99] after intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion The on-site coaching method we have developed shows encouraging results. A larger study (CADENCE) is currently underway to confirm these results.
Réseaux sociaux