Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study

IF 3.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

Resuscitation plus Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-04 DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2026.101352

Océane Barbe , Lorine Hervieu , Estelle Lefrançois , Cécile Sénémeaud , Florian Michel , Richard Macrez , Guillaume Debaty , Christian Creveuil , Romain Clanet

{"title":"Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study","authors":"Océane Barbe , Lorine Hervieu , Estelle Lefrançois , Cécile Sénémeaud , Florian Michel , Richard Macrez , Guillaume Debaty , Christian Creveuil , Romain Clanet","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2026.101352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>A previous manikin-based simulation study among healthcare professionals developed a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) coaching method that significantly improved CPR quality compared with real-time audiovisual feedback provided by a defibrillator monitor. This study aimed to determine whether these findings could be replicated in a larger, multicenter trial involving first responders.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a multicenter, block-randomized trial among French firefighters. Participants were randomized into three groups (<em>n</em> = 36 each): CPR coaching, defibrillator monitor or control. Each participant performed three 2-min external chest compression sequences on an adult cardiac arrest simulator, which measured CPR quality, compression rate, chest recoil, and depth.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 108 participants were enrolled across two centers; one participant withdrew. In the second external chest compression sequence, the CPR coaching group achieved significantly higher CPR quality than the defibrillator monitor group (median 99% [interquartile range (IQR) 99–100] vs 99% [78–99]; <em>p</em> = 0.0022). This difference persisted in the third sequence (<em>p</em> = 0.0017). Compared with the control group, CPR quality in the CPR coaching group was significantly improved in both sequences (<em>p</em> < 0.001), whereas the defibrillator monitor group did not show a significant difference versus control.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The study confirmed the findings of our previous study with healthcare professionals, demonstrating the superiority of CPR coaching over defibrillator monitor feedback for improving CPR quality in a simulation-based setting with lay rescuers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 101352"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520426001372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

A previous manikin-based simulation study among healthcare professionals developed a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) coaching method that significantly improved CPR quality compared with real-time audiovisual feedback provided by a defibrillator monitor. This study aimed to determine whether these findings could be replicated in a larger, multicenter trial involving first responders.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, block-randomized trial among French firefighters. Participants were randomized into three groups (n = 36 each): CPR coaching, defibrillator monitor or control. Each participant performed three 2-min external chest compression sequences on an adult cardiac arrest simulator, which measured CPR quality, compression rate, chest recoil, and depth.

Results

A total of 108 participants were enrolled across two centers; one participant withdrew. In the second external chest compression sequence, the CPR coaching group achieved significantly higher CPR quality than the defibrillator monitor group (median 99% [interquartile range (IQR) 99–100] vs 99% [78–99]; p = 0.0022). This difference persisted in the third sequence (p = 0.0017). Compared with the control group, CPR quality in the CPR coaching group was significantly improved in both sequences (p < 0.001), whereas the defibrillator monitor group did not show a significant difference versus control.

Conclusion

The study confirmed the findings of our previous study with healthcare professionals, demonstrating the superiority of CPR coaching over defibrillator monitor feedback for improving CPR quality in a simulation-based setting with lay rescuers.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

原位训练对心肺复苏质量的影响：一项多中心随机模拟研究

先前在医疗保健专业人员中进行的一项基于人体模型的模拟研究开发了一种心肺复苏（CPR）指导方法，与除颤器监视器提供的实时视听反馈相比，该方法显著提高了心肺复苏质量。本研究旨在确定这些发现是否可以在涉及急救人员的更大的多中心试验中复制。方法：我们在法国消防员中进行了一项多中心、区域随机试验。参与者被随机分为三组（每组36人）：心肺复苏术指导组、除颤器监护组或对照组。每位参与者在成人心脏骤停模拟器上进行三次2分钟的体外胸部按压，测量心肺复苏质量、按压率、胸部后坐力和深度。结果两个研究中心共纳入108名受试者；一名与会者退席。在第二次体外胸外按压序列中，CPR训练组的CPR质量显著高于除颤器监护组(中位数99%[四分位数范围（IQR） 99-100] vs . 99% [78-99]；p = 0.0022)。这种差异在第三序列中仍然存在（p = 0.0017）。与对照组相比，心肺复苏术训练组的心肺复苏术质量在两个序列中都有显著提高（p < 0.001），而除颤器监护组与对照组相比没有显着差异。结论：该研究证实了我们之前对医疗保健专业人员的研究结果，表明在以模拟为基础的环境中，与除颤器监测反馈相比，心肺复苏术指导在提高心肺复苏术质量方面具有优越性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊