The authors reply:

Can a Glove-Coach Technology Significantly Increase the Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Non-healthcare Professionals? A Controlled Trial

Introduction: Cardiovascular accidents are the world's leading cause of death. A good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can reduce cardiac arrest-associated mortality. This study aims to test the coaching system of a wearable glove, providing instructions during out-of-hospital CPR. Materials and Methods: We performed a single-blind, controlled trial to test non-healthcare professionals during a simulated CPR performed on an electronic mannequin. The no-glove group was the control. The primary outcome was to compare the accuracy of depth and frequency of two simulated CPR sessions. Secondary outcomes were to compare the decay of CPR performance and the percentage of the duration of accurate CPR. Results: About 130 volunteers were allocated to 1:1 ratio in both groups; mean age was 36 ± 15 years (min-max 21-64) and 62 (48%) were men; 600 chest compressions were performed, and 571 chest compressions were analyzed. The mean frequency in the glove group was 117.67 vs. 103.02 rpm in the control group (p < 0.001). The appropriate rate cycle was 92.4% in the glove group vs. 71% in the control group, with a difference of 21.4% (p < 0.001). Mean compression depth in the glove group was 52.11 vs. 55.17 mm in the control group (p < 0.001). A mean reduction of compression depth over time of 5.3 mm/min was observed in the control group vs. 0.83 mm/min of reduction in the glove group. Conclusion: Visual and acoustic feedbacks provided through the utilization of the glove's coaching system were useful for non-healthcare professionals' CPR performance.

CPR feedback/prompt device improves the quality of hands-only CPR performed in manikin by laypersons following the 2015 AHA guidelines

PURPOSE

We investigated the effects of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback/prompt device on the quality of chest compression (CC) during hands-only CPR following the 2015 AHA guidelines.

METHODS

A total of 124 laypersons were randomly assigned into three groups. The first (n=42) followed the 2010 guidelines, the second (n=42) followed the 2015 guidelines with no feedback/prompt device, the third (n=40) followed the 2015 guidelines with a feedback/prompt device (2015F). Participants underwent manual CPR training and took a written basic life support examination, then required to perform 2min of hands-only CPR monitored by a CPR feedback/prompt device. The quality of CPR was quantified as the percentage of correct CCs (mean CC depth and rate, complete recoil and chest compression fraction (CCF)) per 20s, as recorded by the CPR feedback/prompt device.

RESULTS

Significantly higher correct ratios of CC, CC depth, and rate were achieved in the 2010 group in each minute vs the 2015 group. The greater mean CC depth and rate were observed in the 2015F group vs the 2015 group. The correct ratio of CC was significantly higher in the 2015F group vs the 2015 group. CCF was also significantly higher in the 2015F group vs the 2015 group in the last 20s of CPR.

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult for a large percentage of laypersons to achieve the targets of CC depth and rate following the 2015 AHA guidelines. CPR feedback/prompt devices significantly improve the quality of hands-only CPR performance by laypersons following the standards of the 2015 AHA guidelines.

Should unobstructed gasping be facilitated and confirmed before administering adrenaline, otherwise, give titrated vasopressin?

A recent commentary, "Resuscitation That's (Un)Shockable: Time to Get the Adrenaline Flowing", published in the New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch called attention to a relatively recent study showing that a large and increasing percentage of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrests exhibit initial nonshockable rhythms (asystole or pulseless electrical activity [PEA]; 82% in 2009 vs 69% in 2000) and a most recent study that concluded that neurologically intact survival to hospital discharge after in-hospital cardiac arrest was significantly more likely after earlier epinephrine administration. It was found that delayed administration of epinephrine was associated significantly with lower chance for survival to hospital discharge, in stepwise fashion (12%, 10%, 8%, and 7% survival, respectively, for patients receiving their first epinephrine dose≤3, 4-6, 7-9, and >9 minutes after arrest). Although early use of epinephrine to manage patients with nonshockable rhythms lacks strong evidence to support efficacy, focus on time to epinephrine administration-in addition to high-quality chest compressions-might be the best early intervention. However, evidence may strongly support the recommendation that adrenaline needs to be used very early because without effective-depth cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with complete recoil, epinephrine may only be effective when gasping is present, which is a time-limited phenomenon. However, because very few rescuers can perform effective-depth chest compressions with complete recoil, gasping is critically necessary for adequate ventilation and generation of adequate coronary and cerebral perfusion. However, under acidemic conditions and high catecholamine levels and/or absence of gasping, vasopressin should be administered instead.