At a glance
ClinicalIndex Comparison RecordStandardized by ClinicalIndex from the ClinicalTrials.gov record · verify against the source.
Comparison of Bystander Fatigue and CPR Quality When Using the 2010 Continuous Chest Compression Versus the 2005 30:2 Chest Compression to Ventilation Resuscitation Guidelines for Laymen: A Randomized Crossover Trial
In Brief
A clinical study evaluating CPR using 30:2 ratio and CPR using continuous compressions for Cardiac Arrest. Completed, enrolled 63 participants across 1 site.
Detailed Summary
STUDY OBJECTIVES The overall goal of this study is to compare bystander fatigue and CPR quality after 5 minutes of continuous chest compressions versus the 2005 30:2 chest compression to ventilation Resuscitation Guidelines, in a population aged 55 or greater. More specifically, the investigators will compare each CPR ratio with regard to: 1. The achieved frequency and depth of chest compressions, and 2. Participant rating of their perceived level of exertion. STUDY HYPOTHESIS In a population aged 55 or greater, the new CPR recommendations will lead to: 1. less frequent and shallower chest compressions over the 5-minute study period; and 2. higher rating of perceived level of exertion when compared to the 2005 30:2 CPR ratio.
Study Details
Timeline
Interventions
Participants will begin performing CPR using a ratio of 30 compressions to 2 ventilations. Participants will then cross over to the other intervention and use continuous compressions.
Participants will begin performing CPR using continuous chest compressions. Participants will then cross-over to the other intervention arm and perform CPR using a ratio of 30 compressions to 2 ventilations.