COMPARISON OF STANDARD CPR AND CPR FEEDBACK METHODS IN TERMS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHEST COMPRESSIONS DURING CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY

Objectives & BackgroundThe primary purpose of the study was to compare the metrics on the effectiveness of chest compressions obtained through an advanced CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) manikin and a real-time CPR feedback device during simulated CPR.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized controlled study. The study group consisted of 21 medical school and 62 paramedic students who were already trained in BLS skills. A five-question pretest on high-quality CPR was administered to all participants and they all performed a two-minute chest compression on an advanced CPR manikin. No statistically significant relationship was found in terms of pretest results, basal compression rates and depths between the two groups (p>0.05). The population was then randomly divided into two groups. The control group, consisting of 43 students, performed two-minute CPR on an advanced CPR manikin, followed by a two-minute CPR session with a simple metronome feedback. The study group performed two-minute CPR on an advanced CPR manikin, followed by a two-minute CPR using a TrueCPR real-time feedback device. We analyzed the compression rate and depth of both techniques.ResultsThe compression rate during CPR with a simple metronome feedback was significantly higher compared to that obtained during standard CPR (108±6.2 vs 119.0±18.2/min;p0.05). Use of the TrueCPR feedback device resulted in significant improvement in both the compression rate (106.2±4.8 vs 121.6±13.1/min;p