Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study

BACKGROUND Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality. METHODS In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups. RESULTS Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups. CONCLUSION While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.

Essentials from the 2015 European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) guidelines for the treatment of adult HIV-positive persons.

BACKGROUND The European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) guidelines are intended for all clinicians involved in the care of HIV-positive persons, and are available in print, online, and as a free App for download for iPhone and Android. GUIDELINE HIGHLIGHTS The 2015 version of the EACS guidelines contains major revisions in all sections; antiretroviral treatment (ART), comorbidities, coinfections and opportunistic diseases. Among the key revisions is the recommendation of ART for all HIV-positive persons, irrespectively of CD4 count, based on the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) study results. The recommendations for the preferred and the alternative ART options have also been revised, and a new section on the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been added. A number of new antiretroviral drugs/drug combinations have been added to the updated tables on drug-drug interactions, adverse drug effects, dose adjustment for renal/liver insufficiency and for ART administration in persons with swallowing difficulties. The revisions of the coinfection section reflect the major advances in anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment with direct-acting antivirals with earlier start of treatment in individuals at increased risk of liver disease progression, and a phasing out of interferon-containing treatment regimens. The section on opportunistic diseases has been restructured according to individual pathogens/diseases and a new overview table has been added on CD4 count thresholds for different primary prophylaxes. CONCLUSIONS The diagnosis and management of HIV infection and related coinfections, opportunistic diseases and comorbidities continue to require a multidisciplinary effort for which the 2015 version of the EACS guidelines provides an easily accessable and updated overview.