BACKGROUND:

Survival rates of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest remain poor. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is crucial for survival and feedback devices could improve its quality.

OBJECTIVE:

We investigated the quality of chest compression when using the Cardio First Angel TM (CFA) feedback device compared to standard basic life support (BLS). The analysis focused on laymen.

METHODS:

Laymen without ( n = 43) and with ( n = 96) explanation of the device, medical students ( n = 128) and medical staff ( n = 27) performed 60 seconds of standard versus assisted chest compression using the CFA on a resuscitation manikin. Compression frequency, depth and position were analyzed according to current guidelines.

RESULTS:

Laymen showed significantly better success rates regarding correct compression depth when using the CFA (23.3% vs. 55.8%, p = 0.004 and 25.0% vs. 52.1%, p < 0.001, laymen without and with explanation of the device, respectively). Medical students likewise improved (22.7% vs. 42.2%, p = 0.004). Hand positioning was 100% correct in all groups with the device. Improvement in frequency yielded by the CFA was more pronounced for probands with fears of contact ( p = 0.02). The benefit of using the device did not differ significantly in laymen with or without explanation.

CONCLUSIONS:

Chest compression as performed by laymen was significantly improved with regard to compression depth when using the CFA for guidance and feedback. With the device, no cases of incorrect hand positioning occurred in any group.

Search results

Effects of the Cardio First Angel TM on chest compression performance