TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes of audio-instructed and video-instructed dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Bielski, Karol
AU - Böttiger, Bernd W.
AU - Pruc, Michal
AU - Gasecka, Aleksandra
AU - Sieminski, Mariusz
AU - Jaguszewski, Milosz J.
AU - Smereka, Jacek
AU - Gilis-Malinowska, Natasza
AU - Peacock, Frank W.
AU - Szarpak, Lukasz
N1 - Funding Information: The study was supported by the European Resuscitation Council Research Net and by the Polish Society of Disaster Medicine. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: The present meta-analysis of clinical and simulation trials aimed to compare video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (V-DACPR) with conventional audio-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-DACPR). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration databases and Scopus from inception until June 10, 2021. The primary outcomes were the prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, and survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome for clinical trials, and chest compression quality for simulation trials. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated the pooled effect. The analyses were performed with the RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14 software. Results: Overall, 2 clinical and 8 simulation trials were included in this meta-analysis. In clinical trials, C-DACPR and V-DACPR were characterised by, respectively, 11.8% vs. 24.3% of prehospital ROSC (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.69; I 2 = 66%; p <.001), 10.7% vs. 22.3% of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.70; I 2 = 69%; p <.001), and 6.3% vs. 16.0% of survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67; I 2 = 73%; p <.001). In simulation trials, chest compression rate per minute equalled 91.3 ± 22.6 for C-DACPR and 107.8 ± 12.6 for V-DACPR (MD = −13.40; 95% CI: −21.86, −4.95; I 2 = 97%; p =.002). The respective values for chest compression depth were 38.7 ± 14.3 and 41.8 ± 12.5 mm (MD = −2.67; 95% CI: −8.35, 3.01; I 2 = 98%; p =.36). Conclusions: As compared with C-DACPR, V-DACPR significantly increased prehospital ROSC and survival to hospital discharge. Under simulated resuscitation conditions, V-DACPR exhibited a higher rate of adequate chest compressions than C-DACPR.Key messages Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation parameters significantly depend on the dispatcher’s support and the manner of the support provided. Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation can increase the rate of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge. Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves the quality of chest compressions compared with dispatcher-assisted resuscitation without video instruction.
AB - Background: The present meta-analysis of clinical and simulation trials aimed to compare video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (V-DACPR) with conventional audio-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-DACPR). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration databases and Scopus from inception until June 10, 2021. The primary outcomes were the prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, and survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome for clinical trials, and chest compression quality for simulation trials. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated the pooled effect. The analyses were performed with the RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14 software. Results: Overall, 2 clinical and 8 simulation trials were included in this meta-analysis. In clinical trials, C-DACPR and V-DACPR were characterised by, respectively, 11.8% vs. 24.3% of prehospital ROSC (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.69; I 2 = 66%; p <.001), 10.7% vs. 22.3% of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.70; I 2 = 69%; p <.001), and 6.3% vs. 16.0% of survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67; I 2 = 73%; p <.001). In simulation trials, chest compression rate per minute equalled 91.3 ± 22.6 for C-DACPR and 107.8 ± 12.6 for V-DACPR (MD = −13.40; 95% CI: −21.86, −4.95; I 2 = 97%; p =.002). The respective values for chest compression depth were 38.7 ± 14.3 and 41.8 ± 12.5 mm (MD = −2.67; 95% CI: −8.35, 3.01; I 2 = 98%; p =.36). Conclusions: As compared with C-DACPR, V-DACPR significantly increased prehospital ROSC and survival to hospital discharge. Under simulated resuscitation conditions, V-DACPR exhibited a higher rate of adequate chest compressions than C-DACPR.Key messages Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation parameters significantly depend on the dispatcher’s support and the manner of the support provided. Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation can increase the rate of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge. Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves the quality of chest compressions compared with dispatcher-assisted resuscitation without video instruction.
KW - Emergency medical dispatcher
KW - cardiac arrest
KW - cardiopulmonary resuscitation
KW - meta-analysis
KW - systematic review
KW - video-call
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123974570&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2032314
DO - https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2032314
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35107406
VL - 54
SP - 464
EP - 471
JO - Annals of Family Medicine
JF - Annals of Family Medicine
SN - 1544-1709
IS - 1
ER -