4.4 Article

Virtual Reality Simulator versus Conventional Advanced Life Support Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Post-Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcdd10020067

Keywords

cardiac surgery; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; emergency resternotomy; virtual reality; simulation training; manikin training; medical training; virtual reality simulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) Cardiac Surgical Unit Advanced Life Support (CSU-ALS) simulator training with conventional classroom CSU-ALS training for patients arresting after cardiac surgery. The results showed that the VR training group performed worse than the conventional training group in achieving the target of delivering three stacked shocks within 1 minute, but performed similarly in reaching the resternotomy time target. The VR training group made fewer mistakes and participants reported positive feedback on the VR simulator.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available