RESUMO
Our randomized controlled simulation study aimed to compare the CPR quality, time-related factors, attitude and self-assessment of non-healthcare university students (aged 18-25) compared video-assisted (V-CPR, n = 50) with telephone-assisted (T-CPR, n = 49) and unassisted (U-CPR, n = 48) CPR in a simulation setting. Regarding to chest compression depth, no difference was found between the three groups (p = 0.065): 41.8 mm, SD = 9.9 in the V-CPR; 35.9 mm, SD = 11.6 in the T-CPR; and 39.4 mm, SD = 15.6 in the U-CPR group. The mean chest compression rate was the best in the V-CPR group (100.9 min-1, SD = 17.1) which was superior to the T-CPR (82.4 min-1, SD = 35.4; p = 0.005), and the U-CPR (84.2 min-1, SD = 30.6; p = 0.013) groups. The overall proportion of correct hand position was the highest in the V-CPR group (48, 96%), compared to the T-CPR (28, 57.1%; p = 0.001), and the U-CPR (34, 70.8%; p = 0.001) groups. V-CPR led to a delay in the time to the first chest compression compared with the U-CPR group (77.5 s, SD = 19.2 vs. 31.3 s, SD = 13.3, p < 0.001). Although V-CPR technology holds the potential to improve overall CPR quality, the importance of appropriate chest compression depth should be emphasized in training for laypeople and dispatchers, as well. Our study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05639868, 06/12/2022).