Long-term retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after shortened chest compression-only training and conventional training: a randomized controlled trial.
Academic Emergency Medicine · 2014-01-01 · Randomised trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is unclear how much the length of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training program can be reduced without ruining its effectiveness. The authors aimed to compare CPR skills 6 months and 1 year after training between shortened chest compression-only CPR training and conventional CPR training. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to either the compression-only CPR group, which underwent a 45-minute training program consisting of chest compressions and automated external defibrillator (AED) use with personal training manikins, or the conventional CPR group, which underwent a 180-minute training program with chest compressions, rescue breathing, and AED use. Participants' resuscitation skills were evaluated 6 months and 1 year after the training. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of appropriate chest compressions 1 year after the training. RESULTS: A total of 146 persons were enrolled, and 63 (87.5%) in the compression-only CPR group and 56 (75.7%) in the conventional CPR group completed the 1-year evaluation. The compression-only CPR group was superior to the conventional CPR group regarding the proportion of appropriate chest compression (mean ± SD = 59.8% ± 40.0% vs. 46.3% ± 28.6%; p = 0.036) and the number of appropriate chest compressions (mean ± SD = 119.5 ± 80.0 vs. 77.2 ± 47.8; p = 0.001). Time without chest compression in the compression-only CPR group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional CPR group (mean ± SD = 11.8 ± 21.1 seconds vs. 52.9 ± 14.9 seconds; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The shortened compression-only CPR training program appears to help the general public retain CPR skills better than the conventional CPR training program. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000001675.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Automated external defibrillator · Bystanders
Related articles
- Evaluating video-supported layperson CPR compared to a standard training course: A randomized controlled trial. (Resusc Plus, 2024)
- Comparison of instructor-led compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator training for secondary school students: A multicenter noninferiority randomized trial. (Resusc Plus, 2023)
- Long-term Effect of Face-to-Face vs Virtual Reality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Training on Willingness to Perform CPR, Retention of Knowledge, and Dissemination of CPR Awareness: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. (JAMA Netw Open, 2022)
- Early or late booster for basic life support skill for laypeople: a simulation-based randomized controlled trial. (CJEM, 2022)
- A non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing self-instruction with instructor-led method in training of layperson cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Sci Rep, 2021)
- Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method. (Emergencias, 2020)