Abstract:Background: App-linked real-time feedback-devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) aim to improve laypersons' resuscitation quality. Resuscitation guidelines recommend these technologies in training settings. This is the first study comparing resuscitation quality of all App-linked feedback-devices currently on market. Methods: A prospective randomised simulation study was performed. After standardised instructions, participants performed 2-minutes compression-only CPR on a manikin without feedback (baseline). Afterwards, participants performed 4 × 2 min CPR with four different feedback devices in randomised order (CorPatch® Trainer, CPRBAND AIO Training, SimCPR®ProTrainer, Relay Response™) (intervention). CPR metrics (chest compression depth (CD), chest compression rate (CR), percentage of correct CD/CR (%), correct hand position, correct chest recoil, and technical preparation-time) were assessed. Devices data were compared to the baseline group using Wilcoxon testing with IBM SPSS (primary outcome). Differences between devices were analysed with ANOVA testing (secondary outcome). Normally distributed data were described as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and non-normally distributed data as Median [Interquartile range (IQR). CPR self-confidence was measured by means of questionnaire before and after feedback devices' use. Comparison was performed by students t-test. Results: Forty participants were involved. SimCPR®ProTrainer was the only device, which resulted in guideline-compliant chest compressions (Mean ± SD:5.37 ± 0.76) with improved chest compression depth (p < 0.001), and percentage of correct chest compression depth (p < 0.001) compared to unassisted CPR (baseline). CorPatch® Trainer as the only device with audio-visual recoil instructions resulted in improved chest recoil (Mean ± SD:72.25 ± 24.89) compared to baseline (Mean ± SD:49.00 ± 42.20; p < 0.01), while the other three devices resulted in significantly lower chest recoil rates (CPRBAND AIO Training: 37.03 ± 39.90; p < 0.01, SimCPR®ProTrainer: Mean ± SD:39.88 ± 36.50; p = 0.03, Relay Response™: Mean ± SD:36.88 ± 37.73; p = 0.02). CPR quality when using the different feedback devices differ in chest compression depth (p = 0.02), chest compression rate (p < 0.001), percentage of correct chest compression depth/rate (p = 0.03/p = 0.04), and technical preparation-time (p < 0.001). Feedback-devices' use increased participant's CPR self-confidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although, CPR feedback devices show improved CPR performance in layperson in some metrics, none of the tested CPR feedback devices supported layperson in overall adequate CPR performance. More and better technical functionality is necessary, to fully utilise the potential of CPR feedback devices and to prevent a worsening of CPR performance when layperson use this technology.

Layperson’s Performance on an Unconversant Type of AED Device:A Prospective Crossover Simulation Experimental Study

The General Public's Ability to Operate Automated External Defibrillator: A Controlled Simulation Study.

The impact on users of an unfamiliar AED following a recent training experience: A randomized cross over simulation study

Clinical record analysis of 54 cases with automatic external defibrillator in public of mainland china

Effect of a Low-Cost Instruction Card for Automated External Defibrillator Operation in Lay Rescuers: a Randomized Simulation Study

An innovative Hearing AED alarm system shortens delivery time of automated external defibrillator - A randomized controlled simulation study

Differences in Automated External Defibrillator Types in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Treated by Police First Responders

Time difference between pad placement in single versus double external defibrillation: A live patient simulation model

Effectiveness of Combining Manual External Defibrillator and Automated External Defibrillator Training for Third-Year Nurse Students

Effect of an interactive cardiopulmonary resuscitation assist device with an automated external defibrillator synchronised with a ventilator on the CPR performance of emergency medical service staff: a randomised simulation study

Abstract 311: Accuracy of Automated External Defibrillator Pad Placement During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Simulations

Development and application of "Special defibrillator for teaching and training"

Automated External Defibrillators: Technical Considerations and Clinical Promise

Lay Rescuer Automated External Defibrillator (“public Access Defibrillation”) Programs

Comparison of Augmented Reality-assisted and Instructor-assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Simulated Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

The diagnostic accuracy of a shock advisory algorithm in automated external defibrillators in the presence of real-world artifacts

Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation-based randomized trial

A Comparison of Defibrillation Efficacy Between Different Impedance Compensation Techniques in High Impedance Porcine Model.

Do laypersons need App-linked real-time feedback devices for effective resuscitation? - Results of a prospective, randomised simulation trial

Learning Effectiveness Assessment between Primary School Students and Adults in Basic Life Support Education

One-Shock Versus Three-Shock Defibrillation Protocol Significantly Improves Outcome in A Porcine Model of Prolonged Ventricular Fibrillation Cardiac Arrest