Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Evaluation of culture-specific popular music as a mental metronome for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised crossover trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Evaluation of culture-specific popular music as a mental metronome for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised crossover trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Evaluation of culture-specific popular music as a mental metronome for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised crossover trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Evaluation of culture-specific popular music as a mental metronome for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised crossover trial
2019
Overview
Introduction:
Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The use of certain songs as mental metronomes for CPR have been validated and recognised by contemporary guidelines. We hypothesise that the National Day song, Count on me Singapore (COMS CPR), is not inferior to standard ‘one-and-two-and-three-and-four’ counting (standard CPR) for timing CPR, in terms of the proportion of participants achieving the guideline compression rate of 100–120/minute.
Methods:
This was a prospective randomised crossover trial powered to demonstrate non-inferiority in the CPR rate. After a familiarisation session, volunteers were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A performed one cycle of standard CPR while group B performed one cycle of COMS CPR. Participants then crossed over to perform the other method. The Laerdal SkillReporter measured CPR quality. Four weeks later, participants attended a test scenario, using standard CPR or COMS CPR (randomly allocated).
Results:
Ninety subjects were recruited; 46 were randomly assigned to group A and 44 to group B. Baseline characteristics were similar; 41.1% of COMS CPR achieved 100–120/minute, versus 28.9% of standard CPR (P=0.028). In mixed effects logistical regression, significantly more COMS CPR was performed at 100–120/minute compared to standard CPR (odds ratio 2.44, 95% confidence interval 1.01–5.9, P=0.047). The proportion of insufficient depth was higher in COMS CPR (80.59% vs. 68.01%, P<0.001). There were no differences in other aspects of CPR quality. There were no differences in CPR quality between standard CPR and COMS CPR during the follow-up.
Conclusion:
COMS CPR was not inferior in terms of the proportion of participants delivering a guideline-compliant rate of chest compression. COMS CPR may have applications to layman CPR education, such as in mass education events.
Publisher
SAGE Publications,Sage Publications Ltd,SAGE Publishing
Subject
