Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

NCT number NCT02694900
Other study ID # 02.009.1MR
Secondary ID
Status Completed
Phase N/A
First received February 16, 2016
Last updated March 12, 2016
Start date February 2016
Est. completion date March 2016

Study information

Verified date March 2016
Source Medical University of Warsaw
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority Poland: Ministry of Science and Higher Education
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The objective of this pilot study was to compare the manual chest compressions (CC) versus CC feedback device TrueCPR vs mechanical CC device LifeLine ARM during simulated pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Completed
Enrollment 52
Est. completion date March 2016
Est. primary completion date March 2016
Accepts healthy volunteers Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Gender Both
Age group 18 Years to 65 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria:

- give voluntary consent to participate in the study

- maximum 1 year of work experience in medicine

- minimum 10 clinical resuscitations

- paramedics, nurses, physicians

Exclusion Criteria:

- not meet the above criteria

- wrist or low back diseases

- pregnancy

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Treatment


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Other:
Manually chest compressions
Chest compressions performed manually without any device
Device:
Cardiopump
Chest compressions performed with Cardiopump
LifeLine ARM
Chest compressions performed using mechanical chest compressions system LifeLine ARM

Locations

Country Name City State
Poland Lukasz Szarpak Warszawa

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Medical University of Warsaw

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Poland, 

References & Publications (1)

Truszewski Z, Szarpak L, Kurowski A, Evrin T, Zasko P, Bogdanski L, Czyzewski L. Randomized trial of the chest compressions effectiveness comparing 3 feedback cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices and standard basic life support by nurses. Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Nov 4. pii: S0735-6757(15)00954-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.11.003. [Epub ahead of print] — View Citation

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary chest compressions effectiveness the percentage of correct chest compressions relative to the total number of chest compressions 1 day No
Secondary Depth correct depth according to European Resuscitation Council 2015 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation 1 day No
Secondary Pressure point correct pressure point according to European Resuscitation Council 2015 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation 1 day No
Secondary Complete pressure release Complete pressure release measure by manikin software 1 day No
Secondary Rate of chest compressions correct chest compressions rate according to European Resuscitation Council 2015 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation 1 day No
Secondary Ease-of-use To access subjective opinion about the difficulty of each chest compression method, participants were asked to rate it on a visual analog scale (VAS) with a score from 1 (extremely easy) to 10 (extremely difficult). 1 day No
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT04039997 - How to Learn Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation N/A