BACKGROUND: Despite intensive research, cardiac arrest remains a leading cause of death. It is of paramount importance to undertake every possible effort to increase the overall quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and improve patient outcome. CPR initiated by a bystander is one of the key factors in survival of such an incident. Telephone-assisted CPR (T-CPR) has proved to be an effective measure in improving layperson resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that adding video-telephony to the emergency call (video-CPR, V-CPR) enhances the quality of layperson resuscitation. DESIGN: This randomised controlled simulation trial was performed from July to August 2018. Laypersons were randomly assigned to video-assisted (V-CPR), telephone-assisted (T-CPR) or control (unassisted CPR) groups. Participants were instructed to perform first aid on a mannequin during a simulated cardiac arrest. SETTING: This study was conducted in the Skills Lab of the University Hospital of Cologne. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty healthy adult volunteers. INTERVENTION: The participants received a smartphone to call emergency services, with Emergency Eye video-call in V-CPR group, and normal telephone functionality in the other groups. T-CPR and V-CPR groups received standardised CPR assistance via phone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary endpoint was resuscitation quality, quantified by compression frequency and depth, and correct hand position. RESULTS: Mean compression frequency of V-CPR group was 106.4 ± 11.7 min, T-CPR group 98.9 ± 12.3 min (NS), unassisted group 71.6 ± 32.3 min (P < 0.001). Mean compression depth was 55.4 ± 12.3 mm in V-CPR, 52.1 ± 13.3 mm in T-CPR (P < 0.001) and 52.9 ± 15.5 mm in unassisted (P < 0.001). Total percentage of correct chest compressions was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in V-CPR (82.6%), than T-CPR (75.4%) and unassisted (77.3%) groups. CONCLUSION: V-CPR was shown to be superior to unassisted CPR, and was comparable to T-CPR. However, V-CPR leads to a significantly better hand position compared with the other study groups. V-CPR assistance resulted in volunteers performing chest compressions with more accurate compression depth. Despite reaching statistical significance, this may be of little clinical relevance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03527771)

Background Telephone-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an effective and proven tool to improve patient survival and outcome after cardiac arrest, and is therefore recommended in international resuscitation guidelines. A new technology that provides the emergency medical services (EMS) dispatcher with a video livestream from a smartphone during telephone-assisted CPR was investigated to assess whether a correct judgment of CPR quality is feasible. Material and Methods After Ethics Committee approval, we conducted this study from August to September 2018 in the University Hospital of Cologne and its metropolitan area. Our study team set up a full-scale resuscitation mannequin on 54 study sites. Video telephony between caller and EMS dispatcher was established, and CPR was initiated with randomized common quality issues concerning compression frequency, compression depth, and compression point. It was evaluated whether the dispatcher recognized correct and incorrect resuscitation performance. Results Forty-six video calls were established successfully. EMS dispatching staff identified correct compression frequency (100-120/min) in 87.5% of the cases, too low frequency (140/min) in 58.5%, respectively. Correct compression depth (5-6 cm) was identified in 70.6%, shallow compressions (<3cm) in 92.9% and a continuous decrease of depth in 100% of all cases. Correct compression point was identified in 87.5%, incorrect epigastric compression in 92.3%, incomplete release in 58.8%. Conclusion A video livestream from a smartphone can support an EMS dispatcher’s assistance in resuscitation. Typical resuscitation mistakes, like incorrect compression frequency or depth, and incorrect compression points could be recognized and corrected efficiently via video livestream.

Dispatcher assistance can help to save lives during layperson cardiopulmonary resuscitation during cardiac arrest. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different camera positions on the evaluation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance during video-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For this randomized, controlled simulation trial, seven video sequences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance were recorded from three different camera positions: side, foot and head position. Video sequences showed either correct cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance or one of the six typical errors: low and high compression rate, superficial and increased compression depth, wrong hand position or incomplete release. Video sequences with different cardiopulmonary resuscitation performances and camera positions were randomly combined such that each evaluator was presented seven individual combinations of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and camera position and evaluated each cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance once. A total of 46 paramedics and 47 emergency physicians evaluated seven video sequences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance from different camera positions. The primary hypothesis was that there are differences in accuracy of correct assessment/error recognition depending on camera perspective. Generalized linear multi-level analyses assuming a binomial distribution and a logit link were employed to account for the dependency between each evaluator's seven ratings. Of 651 video sequences, cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance was evaluable in 96.8% and correctly evaluated in 74.5% over all camera positions. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance was classified correctly from a side perspective in 81.3%, from a foot perspective in 68.8% and from a head perspective in 73.6%, revealing a significant difference in error recognition depending on the camera perspective (p = .01). Correct cardiopulmonary resuscitation was mistakenly evaluated to be false in 46.2% over all perspectives. Participants were able to recognize significantly more mistakes when the camera was located on the opposite side of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation provider. Foot position should be avoided in order to enable the dispatcher the best possible view to evaluating cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality.