Cardiac Arrest
Conditions
Keywords
hands only, CPR, resuscitation, cardiac arrest, Education of general public regarding resuscitation methods
Brief summary
Bystander CPR improves survival from Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest. This study examines the efficacy of ultra-brief video training for Hands-Only CPR. Subjects were randomized to one of four training conditions, then assessed for CPR skills retention.
Detailed description
Bystander CPR improves survival from Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest. This study is the first of its kind to examine the efficacy of ultra-brief video training for Hands-Only CPR without the use of a manikin. The results will inform future efforts to mass train citizens in CPR. Subjects were randomized to one of four training conditions, then assessed for CPR skills retention. The four groups were 1) no training; 2) ultra-brief training video (90 seconds); 3) short training video (5 minutes) with no practice; and 4) short training video with hands-on practice. The subjects were then evaluated for CPR skills retention. One half of the subjects were evaluated on the training day, and the other half were evaluated two months later.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALNo training, assessed within 60 mins
Subjects receive no training in resuscitation
BEHAVIORALUltra-brief video; assessed in 60 mins
Subjects receive an ultra-brief (90-second) video on hands-only CPR
BEHAVIORALBrief video; assessed in 60 mins
Subjects receive a brief (5-minute) video on hands-only CPR
BEHAVIORALBrief video + hands-on; ass'd in 60 mins
Subjects receive a brief (5-minute) video with hands-on manikin practice
BEHAVIORALUltra-brief video; assessed at 2 months
Subjects see ultra-brief video (90-seconds), are assessed two months later
BEHAVIORALBrief video; assessed 2 months later
Subjects see brief video (5 minutes), are then assessed two months later
BEHAVIORALBrief video + hands-on; ass'd 2 ms later
Subjects see brief (5-minute) video, receive hands-on training, and are assessed two months later
Sponsors
American Heart Association
University of Arizona
Valleywise Health
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Members of a local area church
Exclusion criteria
* Less than 18 years old * formal CPR training or certification within last 2 years * Lacks fluency in English * Works as a health care provider
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Median Compression Depth (mm) | 60 minutes after intervention or two months after intervention | Assessment of resuscitation skills using a Laerdal Resusci Annie recording manikin and Laerdal PC Skill Reporting software |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | 60 minutes after intervention and two months after intervention | The proportion of the subjects who assessed the responsiveness of the victim (manikin) as judged by expert raters |
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| No Training, Assessed Within 60 Mins The subjects received no training and were assessed within 60 minutes | 51 |
| Ultra-brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins Subjects receive an ultra-brief (90-second) video on hands-only CPR | 47 |
| Brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins Subjects receive a brief (5-minute) video on hands-only CPR | 49 |
| Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd in 60 Mins Subjects receive a brief (5-minute) video with hands-on manikin practice | 46 |
| Ultra-brief Video; Assessed at 2 Months Subjects receive an ultra-brief (90-second) video on hands-only CPR, and were assessed 2 months later | 48 |
| Brief Video; Assessed 2 Months Later Subjects receive a brief (5-minute) video on hands-only CPR, and were assessed two months later | 50 |
| Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd 2 Months Later Subjects receive a brief (5-minute) video with hands-on manikin practice, and were assessed 2 months later | 45 |
| Total | 336 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Ultra-brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins | Brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins | Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd in 60 Mins | Ultra-brief Video; Assessed at 2 Months | No Training, Assessed Within 60 Mins | Brief Video; Assessed 2 Months Later | Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd 2 Months Later | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 14 Participants | 8 Participants | 4 Participants | 5 Participants | 2 Participants | 4 Participants | 3 Participants | 40 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 32 Participants | 41 Participants | 39 Participants | 43 Participants | 48 Participants | 44 Participants | 42 Participants | 289 Participants |
| Age Continuous | 51.7 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.2 | 50.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3 | 41.7 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.2 | 48.1 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.5 | 44.8 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.8 | 45.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.8 | 47.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.9 | 47.1 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.8 |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 47 participants | 49 participants | 46 participants | 48 participants | 51 participants | 50 participants | 45 participants | 336 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 28 Participants | 22 Participants | 29 Participants | 22 Participants | 28 Participants | 27 Participants | 25 Participants | 181 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 19 Participants | 27 Participants | 17 Participants | 26 Participants | 23 Participants | 23 Participants | 20 Participants | 155 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk | EG004 affected / at risk | EG005 affected / at risk | EG006 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — | — / — | — / — | — / — | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
Outcome results
Primary
Median Compression Depth (mm)
Assessment of resuscitation skills using a Laerdal Resusci Annie recording manikin and Laerdal PC Skill Reporting software
Time frame: 60 minutes after intervention or two months after intervention
Population: Per protocol
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| No Training, Assessed Within 60 Mins | Median Compression Depth (mm) | 30 millimeters |
| Ultra-brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins | Median Compression Depth (mm) | 41 millimeters |
| Brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins | Median Compression Depth (mm) | 42 millimeters |
| Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd in 60 Mins | Median Compression Depth (mm) | 48 millimeters |
| Ultra-brief Video; Assessed at 2 Months | Median Compression Depth (mm) | 43 millimeters |
| Brief Video; Assessed 2 Months Later | Median Compression Depth (mm) | 43 millimeters |
| Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd 2 Months Later | Median Compression Depth (mm) | 46 millimeters |
Comparison: Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisonsp-value: 0.05Kruskal-Wallis
Secondary
The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters
The proportion of the subjects who assessed the responsiveness of the victim (manikin) as judged by expert raters
Time frame: 60 minutes after intervention and two months after intervention
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| No Training, Assessed Within 60 Mins | The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | .854 Proportion of Participants |
| Ultra-brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins | The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | .182 Proportion of Participants |
| Brief Video; Assessed in 60 Mins | The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | .8 Proportion of Participants |
| Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd in 60 Mins | The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | .978 Proportion of Participants |
| Ultra-brief Video; Assessed at 2 Months | The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | .542 Proportion of Participants |
| Brief Video; Assessed 2 Months Later | The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | .780 Proportion of Participants |
| Brief Video + hands-on; Ass'd 2 Months Later | The Proportion of Subjects Who Assessed the Responsiveness of the Victim (Manikin) as Judged by Expert Raters | .822 Proportion of Participants |
Comparison: Comparison of proportions of subjects who assessed responsivenessp-value: 0.05Chi-squared