ArrhythmiasNCT02664779
Determination and Comparison of Short-term Effectiveness of Three Methods Used for Recognition of Arrhythmias in People With Different Degrees of Medical Training (Advanced Life Support Workshop Participants-ALS): Randomized Controlled Educational Experiment.
A study testing Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method, Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method and Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method in people with Arrhythmias, run by Universidad Nacional de Colombia at 1 site in Colombia.
Trial summary
Background: Arrhythmia recognition is a fundamental skill for the provider of advanced life support (ALS). Acquire it is difficult, leading to the birth of systematic methods in an attempt to simplify and optimize, however, it has not compared the effectiveness among the three methods with more evidence among… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Arrhythmias
- What is being tested?
- Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method, Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method and Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 76 participants
- Where
- 1 siteColombia
- Study dates
- Jan 2016to Jun 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- • Health professionals
- Attend a course in Advanced Life Support in Cali (Colombia), during the study period.
- Voluntarily accept to participate in the study
Who cannot join
- No
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Background: Arrhythmia recognition is a fundamental skill for the provider of advanced life support (ALS). Acquire it is difficult, leading to the birth of systematic methods in an attempt to simplify and optimize, however, it has not compared the effectiveness among the three methods with more evidence among professionals with varying degrees of medical training (ALS Workshop participants).
Objective: To determine and compare the effectiveness of the three most widespread and with more evidence systematic methods (10, 6 and 4 steps) for the recognition of arrhythmias in a short-term and its perceived easiness among ALS workshop participants.
Methods / design: Educational Cuasi experimental trial with pre and post intervention measurement, blind, with randomized allocation, in 84 ALS workshop participants. Three systematic methods to recognize arrhythmias will be taught and their effectiveness to diagnose in a short-term and its perceived easiness will be measured and compared.
- Conditions
- Arrhythmias
- Being tested
- Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method, Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method, Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method
- Medical subject headings
- Arrhythmias, Cardiac
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps methodOther
Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps methodOther
Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps methodOther
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method | Experimental | Of participants whom attending the workshop, we will take 84 whom agree to participate and sign the informed consent. They will be divided into subgroups according to their degree of medical training (nursing technicians, university nursing students, university medical students, nurse practitioners graduates, Professional medical graduates, residents of medical specialties and specialists) and randomly assigned one by one from each educational subgroup to 3 intervention groups A, B or C (A = 10 STEPS method, B = 6 STEPS method, C = 4 STEPS method ) so that each group has the third participants of each level of education ensuring matched groups on the level of training of participants in each group. Following this, an equal theoretical test will be performed for all groups to determine the knowledge base in arrhythmias. Receives: Other: Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method |
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method | Active comparator | Of participants whom attending the workshop, we will take 84 whom agree to participate and sign the informed consent. They will be divided into subgroups according to their degree of medical training (nursing technicians, university nursing students, university medical students, nurse practitioners graduates, Professional medical graduates, residents of medical specialties and specialists) and randomly assigned one by one from each educational subgroup to 3 intervention groups A, B or C (A = 10 STEPS method, B = 6 STEPS method, C = 4 STEPS method ) so that each group has the third participants of each level of education ensuring matched groups on the level of training of participants in each group. Following this, an equal theoretical test will be performed for all groups to determine the knowledge base in arrhythmias Receives: Other: Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method |
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method | Active comparator | Of participants whom attending the workshop, we will take 84 whom agree to participate and sign the informed consent. They will be divided into subgroups according to their degree of medical training (nursing technicians, university nursing students, university medical students, nurse practitioners graduates, Professional medical graduates, residents of medical specialties and specialists) and randomly assigned one by one from each educational subgroup to 3 intervention groups A, B or C (A = 10 STEPS method, B = 6 STEPS method, C = 4 STEPS method ) so that each group has the third participants of each level of education ensuring matched groups on the level of training of participants in each group. Following this, an equal theoretical test will be performed for all groups to determine the knowledge base in arrhythmias Receives: Other: Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
percentage of subjects who achieve scores greater than or equal to 30
For comparison of the percentage of subjects who achieve scores greater than or equal to 30 (approving minimum score) in the practical test of arrhythmia's diagnosis, the test will be the Chi-square (X2), which allows to compare proportions in more than two groups; or Fisher's exact test, submitted that one of the expected values is less than 5.
Measured: 15 minutes after delivered the intervention
Secondary outcomes (1)
change in the average scores in the groups
In order to compare the magnitude of the change in the average scores in the groups trained with each of the 3 methods, both in the the theoretical and practical test of diagnosis of arrhythmias; ANOVA or Mann-Whitney's U, according to the distribution of variables was performed. These comparisons are made to the post intervention measurements and Bonferroni correction for alpha according to the number of comparisons will perform. The analysis of the collected data will be using STATA 10.0 software.
Measured: 15 minutes after delivered the intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2016
- Primary completionJan 2017
- Study completionJun 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for ArrhythmiasStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 76 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad Nacional de Colombia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02664779
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ALS1
- Status last verified
- May 2021
- First submitted
- 22 Jan 2016
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Determination and Comparison of Short-term Effectiveness of Three Methods Used for Recognition of Arrhythmias in People With Different Degrees of Medical Training (Advanced Life Support Workshop Participants-ALS): Randomized Controlled Educational Experiment.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02664779
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ALS1
- Conditions
- Arrhythmias
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 76 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad Nacional de ColombiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jan 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Background: Arrhythmia recognition is a fundamental skill for the provider of advanced life support (ALS). Acquire it is difficult, leading to the birth of systematic methods in an attempt to simplify and optimize, however, it has not compared the effectiveness among the three methods with more evidence among professionals with varying degrees of medical training (ALS Workshop participants).
Objective: To determine and compare the effectiveness of the three most widespread and with more evidence systematic methods (10, 6 and 4 steps) for the recognition of arrhythmias in a short-term and its perceived easiness among ALS workshop participants.
Methods / design: Educational Cuasi experimental trial with pre and post intervention measurement, blind, with randomized allocation, in 84 ALS workshop participants. Three systematic methods to recognize arrhythmias will be taught and their effectiveness to diagnose in a short-term and its perceived easiness will be measured and compared.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method | Experimental | Other: Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps methodOf participants whom attending the workshop, we will take 84 whom agree to participate and sign the informed consent. They will be divided into subgroups according to their degree of medical training (nursing technicians, university nursing students, university medical students, nurse practitioners graduates, Professional medical graduates, residents of medical specialties and specialists) and randomly assigned one by one from each educational subgroup to 3 intervention groups A, B or C (A = 10 STEPS method, B = 6 STEPS method, C = 4 STEPS method ) so that each group has the third participants of each level of education ensuring matched groups on the level of training of participants in each group. Following this, an equal theoretical test will be performed for all groups to determine the knowledge base in arrhythmias. |
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method | Active comparator | Other: Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps methodOf participants whom attending the workshop, we will take 84 whom agree to participate and sign the informed consent. They will be divided into subgroups according to their degree of medical training (nursing technicians, university nursing students, university medical students, nurse practitioners graduates, Professional medical graduates, residents of medical specialties and specialists) and randomly assigned one by one from each educational subgroup to 3 intervention groups A, B or C (A = 10 STEPS method, B = 6 STEPS method, C = 4 STEPS method ) so that each group has the third participants of each level of education ensuring matched groups on the level of training of participants in each group. Following this, an equal theoretical test will be performed for all groups to determine the knowledge base in arrhythmias |
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method | Active comparator | Other: Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps methodOf participants whom attending the workshop, we will take 84 whom agree to participate and sign the informed consent. They will be divided into subgroups according to their degree of medical training (nursing technicians, university nursing students, university medical students, nurse practitioners graduates, Professional medical graduates, residents of medical specialties and specialists) and randomly assigned one by one from each educational subgroup to 3 intervention groups A, B or C (A = 10 STEPS method, B = 6 STEPS method, C = 4 STEPS method ) so that each group has the third participants of each level of education ensuring matched groups on the level of training of participants in each group. Following this, an equal theoretical test will be performed for all groups to determine the knowledge base in arrhythmias |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- • Health professionals
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- No
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method | Other | Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method |
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method | Other | Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method |
| Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method | Other | Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method |
Primary outcome
percentage of subjects who achieve scores greater than or equal to 30
Time frame: 15 minutes after delivered the intervention
For comparison of the percentage of subjects who achieve scores greater than or equal to 30 (approving minimum score) in the practical test of arrhythmia's diagnosis, the test will be the Chi-square (X2), which allows to compare proportions in more than two groups; or Fisher's exact test, submitted that one of the expected values is less than 5.
1 secondary outcome
change in the average scores in the groups
Time frame: 15 minutes after delivered the intervention
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jun 2021.
Related trials for Arrhythmias
RecruitingObservational study
AI-powered ECG Analysis Using Willem™ Software in High-risk Cardiac Patients (WILLEM)
Cardiomyopathies, Cardiac Arrest
Not yet recruiting
nCPAP-NAVA-Backup Versus Standard nCPAP for Severe Apnea in Preterm Infants ≤28 Weeks
Apnea of Prematurity
Active, not recruiting
Horizon 360 Protocol for the Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation With the Sphere-360™ Catheter and Affera™ Mapping and Ablation System (Horizon 360)
Paroxysmal AF
Enrolling by invitation
VINTAGE (Ventricular Intramyocardial Navigation for Tachycardia Ablation Guided by Electrograms) Using Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Catheters
Ventricular Arrhythmia
Enrolling by invitation
EDEN Intracardiac Electrogram Recording and Classifying System
Ventricular Arrhythmia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 10 steps method, Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 6 steps method and Arrhythmia diagnosis with the 4 steps method in people with Arrhythmias, run by Universidad Nacional de Colombia at 1 site in Colombia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jun 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Colombia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
percentage of subjects who achieve scores greater than or equal to 30 (time frame: 15 minutes after delivered the intervention). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jun 2021.