Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study

• CPR coaching achieved superior quality of chest compressions compared with defibrillator monitor and control groups. • Improvements were maintained even under muscular fatigue, with significantly better compression rate and chest recoil. • Defibrillator monitor feedback did not demonstrate significant benefit compared with unassisted controls. Background : A previous manikin-based simulation study among healthcare professionals developed a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) coaching method that significantly improved CPR quality compared with real-time audiovisual feedback provided by a defibrillator monitor. This study aimed to determine whether these findings could be replicated in a larger, multicenter trial involving first responders. We conducted a multicenter, block-randomized trial among French firefighters. Participants were randomized into three groups (n = 36 each): CPR coaching, defibrillator monitor or control. Each participant performed three 2-minute external chest compression sequences on an adult cardiac arrest simulator, which measured CPR quality, compression rate, chest recoil, and depth. A total of 108 participants were enrolled across two centers; one participant withdrew. In the second external chest compression sequence, the CPR coaching group achieved significantly higher CPR quality than the defibrillator monitor group (median 99% [interquartile range (IQR) 99–100] vs 99% [78–99]; p = 0.0022). This difference persisted in the third sequence (p = 0.0017). Compared with the control group, CPR quality in the CPR coaching group was significantly improved in both sequences (p < 0.001), whereas the defibrillator monitor group did not show a significant difference versus control. The study confirmed the findings of our previous study with healthcare professionals, demonstrating the superiority of CPR coaching over defibrillator monitor feedback for improving CPR quality in a simulation-based setting with lay rescuers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Resuscitation Plus
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2026.101352
Primary Topic
Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study

Debaty Guillaume, Barbe Océane, Clanet Romain, Macrez Richard et al.
Resuscitation Plus
Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
article

Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study

Debaty Guillaume, Barbe Océane, Clanet Romain, Macrez Richard, Michel Florian, Sénémeaud Cécile, Hervieu Lorine, Creveuil Christian, Lefrançois Estelle
article en

Abstract

• CPR coaching achieved superior quality of chest compressions compared with defibrillator monitor and control groups. • Improvements were maintained even under muscular fatigue, with significantly better compression rate and chest recoil. • Defibrillator monitor feedback did not demonstrate significant benefit compared with unassisted controls. Background : A previous manikin-based simulation study among healthcare professionals developed a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) coaching method that significantly improved CPR quality compared with real-time audiovisual feedback provided by a defibrillator monitor. This study aimed to determine whether these findings could be replicated in a larger, multicenter trial involving first responders. We conducted a multicenter, block-randomized trial among French firefighters. Participants were randomized into three groups (n = 36 each): CPR coaching, defibrillator monitor or control. Each participant performed three 2-minute external chest compression sequences on an adult cardiac arrest simulator, which measured CPR quality, compression rate, chest recoil, and depth. A total of 108 participants were enrolled across two centers; one participant withdrew. In the second external chest compression sequence, the CPR coaching group achieved significantly higher CPR quality than the defibrillator monitor group (median 99% [interquartile range (IQR) 99–100] vs 99% [78–99]; p = 0.0022). This difference persisted in the third sequence (p = 0.0017). Compared with the control group, CPR quality in the CPR coaching group was significantly improved in both sequences (p < 0.001), whereas the defibrillator monitor group did not show a significant difference versus control. The study confirmed the findings of our previous study with healthcare professionals, demonstrating the superiority of CPR coaching over defibrillator monitor feedback for improving CPR quality in a simulation-based setting with lay rescuers.

Resuscitation Plus
Institut polytechnique de Grenoble (FR), Institut Mérieux (France) (FR), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Normandie Université (FR), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie (FR), Argentine Antarctic Institute (AR), Bayer (France) (FR), Université Grenoble Alpes (FR), Université de Caen Normandie (FR)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.