Roberto J. Barcala Furelos

PCS, management and learning system to its control

Sudden Cardiac Arrest (PCS, Paro Cardiaco Subito) is one of the principal death reasons in Europe (Perkins et al. 2015). One of the most important things that a person should know it should be how to apply recovering techniques. It exist devices that permit to teach how to apply these techniques. This paper explain how a mixed group of researchers are creating a new device that will permit to obtain new signals and techniques to learn how to apply correctly the way to recover a people.

The impact of the use of a CPRMeter monitor on quality of chest compressions: a prospective randomised trial, cross-simulation

BACKGROUND Drowning is a common issue at many pools and beaches, and in seas all over the world. Lifeguards often act as bystanders, and therefore adequate training in high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and use of adequate equip-ment by lifeguards is essential. AIM The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the recently introduced CPRMeter (Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) on quality of CPR, if used by moderately experienced CPR providers. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that using the CPRMeter improves quality of chest compression by lifeguards compared to standard non-feedback CPR. METHODS The study was designed as prospective, randomised, cross-over manikin trial. Fifty lifeguards of the Volunteer Water Rescue Service (WOPR), a Polish nationwide association specialised in water rescue, participated in this study. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to one of two groups: a feedback group and a non-feedback group. Participants swim a distance of 25 m in the pool, and then they were asked to haul a manikin for the second 25 m, simulating rescuing a drowning victim. Once participants finished the second 25-m distance, participants were asked to initiate 2-min basic life support according to the randomisation. RESULTS The median quality of CPR score for the 2-min CPR session without feedback was 69 (33-77) compared to 84 (55-93) in the feedback group (p < 0.001). Compression score, mean depth, rate of adequate chest compressions/min, and overall mean rate during the CPR session improved significantly in the feedback group, compared to the non-feedback group. CONCLUSIONS Using the visual real-time feedback device significantly improved quality of CPR in our relatively unexperienced CPR providers. Better quality of bystander CPR is essential for clinical outcomes, and therefore feedback devices should be considered. Further clinical studies are needed to assess the effect of real-time visual devices, especially in bystander-CPR.