Abstract

Effective studies of comparison between traditional based BLS and ACLS training vs. Simulation based BLS and ACLS training among final year medical students NCR Institute of Medical Sciences, Meerut. Material and methods: The NCR Institute of Medical Sciences in Meerut played host to our prospective, randomised, parallel-group trial. Eligible participants were fourth-year medical students doing an emergency medicine (EM) clerkship for credit. Eighty fourth-year medical students were randomly assigned to either a year of medical simulation (SIM) or a year of traditional instruction (STD). The AHA recommendations for high-quality CPR were taught to the SIM group through PowerPoint presentation and training on a high-fidelity simulator over the course of an hour. The STD group received the same education, but their CPR training was conducted on a low-fidelity Resusci Anne® manikin. All of the students handled a simulated cardiac arrest with the main result meeting the criteria for high-quality CPR as outlined by the AHA guidelines (specifies metrics for compression rate, depth, recoil, and compression fraction). Involvement of EMS was a secondary result. Results: Of 80 eligible participants, For our primary outcome, the mean compression depth was 4.62cm (95% CI [4.28–4.91]) for the SIM group and 3.92cm (95% CI [3.61–4.41]) for the standard (STD) group, p=0.03. The compression fraction was 0.732 (95% CI [0.701–0.762]) for the SIM group and 0.682 (95% CI [0.667–0.699]) for the STD group, p=0.01. The mean compression rate was 125.22 per minute (95% CI [119.25–130.25]) for the simulation (SIM) group and 117.25 per minute (95% CI [111.25–123.58]) for the STD group, p=0.07. The mean percentage of chest compressions that were accompanied by full chest recoil was 0.961 (95% CI [0.932–0.982]) for the SIM group and 0.957 (95% CI [0.884–0.991]) for the STD group, p=0.71. For our secondary outcome, the time to activation of EMS was 25.22 seconds (95% CI [16.25–42.85]) for the SIM group and 81.25 seconds (95% CI [46.58–121.33]) for the STD group, p=0.006. Conclusion: We found that high-fidelity simulation training resulted in CPR performance that was more closely aligned to AHA CPR guidelines when compared to standard training in our prospective, randomised, and parallel-group study comparing the relative effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation training versus standard training.

Description