Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Virtual Reality Simulator versus Conventional Advanced Life Support Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Post-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled 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?
Virtual Reality Simulator versus Conventional Advanced Life Support Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Post-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Virtual Reality Simulator versus Conventional Advanced Life Support Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Post-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled 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
Virtual Reality Simulator versus Conventional Advanced Life Support Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Post-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
2023
Overview
External chest compressions are often ineffective for patients arresting after cardiac surgery, for whom emergency resternotomy may be required. A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed, with participants being randomized to a virtual reality (VR) Cardiac Surgical Unit Advanced Life Support (CSU-ALS) simulator training arm or a conventional classroom CSU-ALS training arm. Twenty-eight cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) residents were included and subsequently assessed in a moulage scenario in groups of two, either participating as a leader or surgeon. The primary binary outcomes were two time targets: (1) delivering three stacked shocks within 1 min and (2) resternotomy within 5 min. Secondary outcomes were the number of protocol mistakes made and a questionnaire after the VR simulator. The conventional training group administered stacked shocks within 1 min in 43% (n = 6) of cases, and none in the VR group reached this target, missing it by an average of 25 s. The resternotomy time target was reached in 100% of the cases (n = 14) in the conventional training group and in 83% of the cases (n = 10) in the VR group. The VR group made 11 mistakes in total versus 15 for those who underwent conventional training. Participants reported that the VR simulator was useful and easy to use. The results show that the VR simulator can provide adequate CSU-ALS training. Moreover, VR training results in fewer mistakes suggesting that repetitive practice in an immersive environment improves skills.
