Automatic Mechanical Ventilation vs Manual Bag Ventilation During CPR: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence supporting the theory that mechanical ventilation can replace the manual ventilation method during CPR. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is using automatic mechanical ventilation feasible and comparable to the manual ventilation method during CPR? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This pilot randomized controlled trial compared automatic mechanical ventilation (MV) and manual bag ventilation (BV) during CPR of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Patients with medical OHCA arriving at the ED were randomly assigned to two groups: an MV group using a mechanical ventilator and a BV group using Ambu-bag. Primary outcome was any return-of-spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were changes of arterial blood gas analysis results during CPR. Tidal volume, minute volume, and peak airway pressure were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were enrolled, and 30 patients were randomly assigned to each group. There were no statistically significant differences in basic characteristics of OHCA patients between the two groups. The rate of any ROSC was 56.7% in the MV group and 43.3% in the BV group, indicating no significant (P = .439) difference between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences in changes of PH, Pco2, Po2, HCO3, or lactate levels during CPR between the two groups (P values = .798, 0.249, .515, .876, and .878, respectively). Significantly lower VT (P < .001) and minute volume (P = .009) were observed in the MV group. INTERPRETATION: In this pilot trial, the use of MV instead of BV during CPR was feasible and could serve as a viable alternative. A multicenter randomized controlled trial is needed to create sufficient evidence for ventilation guideline during CPR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05550454; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Efficacy of distance training program for cardiopulmonary resuscitation utilizing smartphone application and home delivery system.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Community cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education is important for laypersons. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with social distancing, conventional face-to-face CPR training was unavailable. We developed a distance learning CPR training course (HEROS-Remote) using a smartphone application that monitors real-time chest compression quality and a home delivery collection system for mannikins. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the HEROS-Remote course by comparing chest compression quality with that of conventional CPR training. METHODS: We applied layperson CPR education with HEROS-Remote and conventional education in Seoul during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both groups underwent a 2-min post-training chest compression test, and we tested non-inferiority. Chest compression depth, rate, complete recoil, and composite chest compression score was measured. Trainees completed a satisfaction survey on CPR education and delivery. The primary outcome was the mean chest compression depth. RESULTS: A total of 180 trainees were enrolled, with 90 assigned to each training group. Chest compression depth of HEROS-Remote training showed non-inferiority to that of conventional training (67.4 vs. 67.8, p = 0.78), as well as composite chest compression score (92.7 vs. 95.5, p = 0.16). The proportions of adequate chest compression depth, chest compression rate, and chest compressions with complete chest recoil were similar in both training sessions. In the HEROS-Remote training, 90% of the trainees were satisfied with CPR training, and 96% were satisfied with the delivery and found it convenient. CONCLUSION: HEROS-Remote training was non-inferior to conventional CPR training in terms of chest compression quality. Distance learning CPR training using a smartphone application and mannikin delivery had high user satisfaction and was logistically feasible.

Clinical factors associated with delayed emergency department visit in intracranial traumatic brain injury: from a multicenter injury surveillance registry.

INTRODUCTION: Early diagnosis and intervention by visiting the emergency department (ED) are important for traumatic brain injury (TBI). We evaluate the factors associated with delayed ED visits in patients with intracranial TBI. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter observational study using the ED-based injury in-depth surveillance database (EDIIS) was designed. Patients with intracranial TBI with an alert mentality at ED presentation from 2014 to 2019 were enrolled. Patients were categorized into four groups according to ED visit time after injury (<1 h, 1-3 h, 3-12 h, and >12 h). ED visits after 12 h were defined as delayed ED visits. The factors associated with delayed ED visits were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 15,620 patients with TBI enrolled in the final analysis, 2,190 (14.0%) visited the ED 12 h after injury. Multivariable analysis identified the following factors as independent predictors for delayed ED visit such as unintentionally struck by or against an object or unintentional fall as a trauma mechanism, injury during ordinary activities, indoor injury, injury during nighttime, winter season, combined subdural hemorrhage and epidural hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: In patients with intracranial TBI with an alert mentality, multiple factors related to patient demographics and injury characteristics were associated with the time interval from injury to ED visit.