• Lukasz Iskrzycki, Jacek Smereka, Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez, Roberto Barcala Furelos, Cristian Abelarias Gomez, Halla Kaminska, Wojciech Wieczorek, Lukasz Szarpak, Klaudiusz Nadolny, Robert Galazkowski, Kurt Ruetzler, and Jerzy Robert Ladny.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Lindleya 4, 02-005 Warsaw, Poland; Department of Emergency Medicine and Disaster, Medical University Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland, Szpitalna 37, 15-295 Bialystok, Poland. lukasz.szarpak@gmail.com.
• Kardiol Pol. 2018 Jan 1; 76 (3): 574-579.

BackgroundDrowning is a common issue at many pools and beaches, and in seas all over the world. Lifeguards often act as bystanders, and therefore adequate training in high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and use of adequate equip-ment by lifeguards is essential.AimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the recently introduced CPRMeter (Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) on quality of CPR, if used by moderately experienced CPR providers. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that using the CPRMeter improves quality of chest compression by lifeguards compared to standard non-feedback CPR.MethodsThe study was designed as prospective, randomised, cross-over manikin trial. Fifty lifeguards of the Volunteer Water Rescue Service (WOPR), a Polish nationwide association specialised in water rescue, participated in this study. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to one of two groups: a feedback group and a non-feedback group. Participants swim a distance of 25 m in the pool, and then they were asked to haul a manikin for the second 25 m, simulating rescuing a drowning victim. Once participants finished the second 25-m distance, participants were asked to initiate 2-min basic life support according to the randomisation.ResultsThe median quality of CPR score for the 2-min CPR session without feedback was 69 (33-77) compared to 84 (55-93) in the feedback group (p < 0.001). Compression score, mean depth, rate of adequate chest compressions/min, and overall mean rate during the CPR session improved significantly in the feedback group, compared to the non-feedback group.ConclusionsUsing the visual real-time feedback device significantly improved quality of CPR in our relatively unexperienced CPR providers. Better quality of bystander CPR is essential for clinical outcomes, and therefore feedback devices should be considered. Further clinical studies are needed to assess the effect of real-time visual devices, especially in bystander-CPR.

16 keywords...

hide…