Effectiveness of simplified chest compression-only CPR training for the general public: A randomized controlled trial

SummaryObjectivesTo compare the quality of resuscitation between those with a simplified chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) program and those with a conventional CPR program.MethodsThe participants were randomly assigned to either the 120-min training program of chest compressions (chest compression-only CPR) or the 180-min training program of chest compressions and ventilations (conventional CPR). Main outcome measures were the net number of appropriate chest compressions during the 2-min test period and the proportion of appropriate chest compressions over the theoretically attainable number one month after the training.Results223 participants were enrolled and 104 in each group completed this study. The 2-min number of appropriate chest compressions was 86.1 ± 57.2 in the chest compression-only CPR group, which was significantly greater than 57.1 ± 30.2 in the conventional CPR group (p < 0.001). The proportion of appropriate chest compressions was higher in the chest compression-only CPR group than in the conventional CPR group (47.1 ± 31.1% versus 38.1 ± 20.1%, p = 0.022). Time without chest compressions during conventional CPR reached 85.5 ± 17.0 s out of 120 s, which was significantly longer than that during chest compression-only CPR (33.9 ± 10.0 s, p < 0.001). The total number of ventilations and the number of appropriate ventilations during 2 min was 2.5 ± 3.0 and 0.9 ± 1.6, respectively.ConclusionsA simplified chest compression-only CPR program makes it possible for the general public to perform a greater number of appropriate chest compressions than the conventional CPR program (UMIN-CTR C0000000321).