Use of a Checklist During Observation of a Simulated Cardiac Arrest Scenario Does Not Improve Time to CPR and Defibrillation Over Observation Alone for Subsequent Scenarios

Theory: Immersive simulation is a common mode of education for medical students. Observation of clinical simulations prior to participation is believed to be beneficial, though this is often a passive process. Active observation may be more beneficial. Hypotheses: The hypothesis tested in this study was that the active use of a simple checklist during observation of an immersive simulation would result in better participant performance in a subsequent scenario compared with passive observation alone. Methods: Medical students were randomized to either passive or active (with checklist) observation of an immersive simulation involving cardiac arrest prior to participating in their own simulation. Performance measures included time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and time to defibrillation and were compared between first and second scenarios as well as between passive and active observers. Results: Seventy-nine simulations involving 232 students were conducted. Mean time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for those using the checklist and 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = 6 seconds), t(35) = 1.46, p =.153. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for those using the checklist and 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = –2 seconds), t(38) =.21, p =.837. Time to CPR was 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for passive observers and 31 seconds (SD = 21.0; M difference = 7 seconds), t(35) = 1.13, p =.265, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for active observers and 36 seconds (SD = 26.2; M difference = 18 seconds), t(24) = 2.81, p =.010, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for passive observers and 125 seconds (SD = 32.2; M difference = 33 seconds), t(33) = 3.63, p =.001, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for the active observers and 132 seconds (SD = 52.9; M difference = 38 seconds), t(28) =.46, p =.008, for their first scenario counterparts. Conclusions: Observation alone leads to improved performance in the management of a simulated cardiac arrest. The active use of a simple skills-based checklist during observation did not appear to improve performance over passive observation alone.     

The Importance of Venous Return in Starling‐Like Control of Rotary Ventricular Assist Devices

Rotary ventricular assist devices (VADs) are less sensitive to preload than the healthy heart, resulting in inadequate flow regulation in response to changes in patient cardiac demand. Starling‐like physiological controllers (SLCs) have been developed to automatically regulate VAD flow based on ventricular preload. An SLC consists of a cardiac response curve (CRC) which imposes a nonlinear relationship between VAD flow and ventricular preload, and a venous return line (VRL) which determines the return path of the controller. This study investigates the importance of a physiological VRL in SLC of dual rotary blood pumps for biventricular support. Two experiments were conducted on a physical mock circulation loop (MCL); the first compared an SLC with an angled physiological VRL (SLC‐P) against an SLC with a vertical VRL (SLC‐V). The second experiment quantified the benefit of a dynamic VRL, represented by a series of specific VRLs, which could adapt to different circulatory states including changes in pulmonary (PVR) and systemic (SVR) vascular resistance versus a fixed physiological VRL which was calculated at rest. In both sets of experiments, the transient controller responses were evaluated through reductions in preload caused by the removal of fluid from the MCL. The SLC‐P produced no overshoot or oscillations following step changes in preload, whereas SLC‐V produced 0.4 L/min (12.5%) overshoot for both left and right VADs. Additionally, the SLC‐V had increased settling time and reduced controller stability as evidenced by transient controller oscillations. The transient results comparing the specific and standard VRLs demonstrated that specific VRL rise times were improved by between 1.2 and 4.7 s ( = 3.05 s), while specific VRL settling times were improved by between 2.8 and 16.1 seconds ( = 8.38 s) over the standard VRL. This suggests only a minor improvement in controller response time from a dynamic VRL compared to the fixed VRL. These results indicate that the use of a fixed physiologically representative VRL is adequate over a wide variety of physiological conditions.