Simplified dispatch-assisted CPR instructions outperform standard protocol.

Full Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Dispatch-assisted chest compressions only CPR (CC-CPR) has gained widespread acceptance, and recent research suggests that increasing the proportion of compression time during CPR may increase survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We created a simplified CC-CPR protocol to reduce time to start chest compressions and to increase the proportion of time spent delivering chest compressions. This simplified protocol was compared to a published protocol, Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS) Version 11.2, recommended by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to the MPDS v11.2 protocol or a simplified protocol. Data was recorded from a Laerdal Resusci Anne Skillreporter manikin. A simulated emergency medical dispatcher, contacted by cell phone, delivered standardized instructions for both protocols. Outcomes included chest compression rate, depth, hand position, full release, overall proportion of compressions without error, time to start of CPR and total hands-off chest time. Proportions were analyzed by Wilcoxon's Rank Sum tests and time variables with Welch ANOVA and Wilcoxon's Rank Sum test. All tests used a two-sided alpha-level of 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen subjects were randomized prospectively, 58 to the standard protocol and 59 to the simplified protocol. The average age of subjects in both groups was 25 years old. For both groups, the compression rate was equivalent (104 simplified versus 94 MPDS, p = 0.13), as was the proportion with total release (1.0 simplified versus 1.0 MPDS, p = 0.09). The proportion to the correct depth was greater in the simplified protocol (0.31 versus 0.03, p < 0.01), as was the proportion of compressions done without error (0.05 versus 0.0, p = 0.16). Time to start of chest compressions and total hands-off chest time were better in the simplified protocol (start time 60.9s versus 78.6s, p < 0.0001; hands-off chest time 69 s versus 95 s, p < 0.0001). The proportion with correct hand position, however, was worse in the simplified protocol (0.35 versus 0.84, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The simplified protocol was as good as, or better than the MPDS v11.2 protocol in every aspect studied except hand position, and the simplified protocol resulted in significant time savings. The protocol may need modification to ensure correct hand position. Time savings and improved quality of CPR achieved by the new set of instructions could be important in strengthening critical links in the cardiac chain of survival.

Author information

Author/s: Dias, J A (JA); Brown, T B (TB); Saini, D (D); Shah, R C (RC); Cofield, S S (SS); Waterbor, J W (JW); Funkhouser, E (E); Terndrup, T E (TE);

Affiliation: School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. johnny_dias(-atsign-)yahoo.com

Grants: 5 U01-HL077881 (Agency:NHLBI NIH HHS) ; N01-LM-3-3513 (Agency:NLM NIH HHS)

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Journal: Resuscitation (Resuscitation), published in Ireland. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2007-Jan; vol 72 (issue 1) : pp 108-14

Dates: Created 2006/12/18; Completed 2007/04/24; Revised 2009/08/25;

PMID: 17123687, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 8/25/2009, IMS Date: )

Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.

External Links for this article
(including full text providers, if available):

Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.

This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.