Cargando…

A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity

BACKGROUND: Current 2010 terrestrial (1G(z)) CPR guidelines have been advocated by space agencies for hypogravity and microgravity environments, but may not be feasible. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate rescuer performance over 1.5 min of external chest compressions (ECCs) during simulate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Russomano, Thais, Baers, Justin H, Velho, Rochelle, Cardoso, Ricardo B, Ashcroft, Alexandra, Rehnberg, Lucas, Gehrke, Rodrigo D, Dias, Mariana K P, Baptista, Rafael R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710155/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-7648-2-11
_version_ 1782276838204112896
author Russomano, Thais
Baers, Justin H
Velho, Rochelle
Cardoso, Ricardo B
Ashcroft, Alexandra
Rehnberg, Lucas
Gehrke, Rodrigo D
Dias, Mariana K P
Baptista, Rafael R
author_facet Russomano, Thais
Baers, Justin H
Velho, Rochelle
Cardoso, Ricardo B
Ashcroft, Alexandra
Rehnberg, Lucas
Gehrke, Rodrigo D
Dias, Mariana K P
Baptista, Rafael R
author_sort Russomano, Thais
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current 2010 terrestrial (1G(z)) CPR guidelines have been advocated by space agencies for hypogravity and microgravity environments, but may not be feasible. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate rescuer performance over 1.5 min of external chest compressions (ECCs) during simulated Martian hypogravity (0.38G(z)) and microgravity (μG) in relation to 1G(z) and rest baseline and (2) compare the physiological costs of conducting ECCs in accordance with the 2010 and 2005 CPR guidelines. METHODS: Thirty healthy male volunteers, ranging from 17 to 30 years, performed four sets of 30 ECCs for 1.5 min using the 2010 and 2005 ECC guidelines during 1G(z), 0.38G(z) and μG simulations (Evetts-Russomano (ER) method), achieved by the use of a body suspension device. ECC depth and rate, range of elbow flexion, post-ECC heart rate (HR), minute ventilation (V(E)), peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)peak) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured. RESULTS: All volunteers completed the study. Mean ECC rate was achieved for all gravitational conditions, but true depth during simulated microgravity was not sufficient for the 2005 (28.5 ± 7.0 mm) and 2010 (32.9 ± 8.7 mm) guidelines, even with a mean range of elbow flexion of 15°. HR, V(E) and VO(2)peak increased to an average of 136 ± 22 bpm, 37.5 ± 10.3 L·min(−1), 20.5 ± 7.6 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) for 0.38G(z) and 161 ± 19 bpm, 58.1 ± 15.0 L·min(−1), 24.1 ± 5.6 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) for μG from a baseline of 84 ± 15 bpm, 11.4 ± 5.9 L·min(−1), 3.2 ± 1.1 mL·kg(−1)·min(-1), respectively. RPE was the only variable to increase with the 2010 guidelines. CONCLUSION: No additional physiological cost using the 2010 basic life support (BLS) guidelines was needed for healthy males performing ECCs for 1.5 min, independent of gravitational environment. This cost, however, increased for each condition tested when the two guidelines were compared. Effective ECCs were not achievable for both guidelines in simulated μG using the ER BLS method. This suggests that future implementation of an ER BLS in a simulated μG instruction programme as well as upper arm strength training is required to perform effective BLS in space.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3710155
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37101552013-07-15 A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity Russomano, Thais Baers, Justin H Velho, Rochelle Cardoso, Ricardo B Ashcroft, Alexandra Rehnberg, Lucas Gehrke, Rodrigo D Dias, Mariana K P Baptista, Rafael R Extrem Physiol Med Research BACKGROUND: Current 2010 terrestrial (1G(z)) CPR guidelines have been advocated by space agencies for hypogravity and microgravity environments, but may not be feasible. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate rescuer performance over 1.5 min of external chest compressions (ECCs) during simulated Martian hypogravity (0.38G(z)) and microgravity (μG) in relation to 1G(z) and rest baseline and (2) compare the physiological costs of conducting ECCs in accordance with the 2010 and 2005 CPR guidelines. METHODS: Thirty healthy male volunteers, ranging from 17 to 30 years, performed four sets of 30 ECCs for 1.5 min using the 2010 and 2005 ECC guidelines during 1G(z), 0.38G(z) and μG simulations (Evetts-Russomano (ER) method), achieved by the use of a body suspension device. ECC depth and rate, range of elbow flexion, post-ECC heart rate (HR), minute ventilation (V(E)), peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)peak) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured. RESULTS: All volunteers completed the study. Mean ECC rate was achieved for all gravitational conditions, but true depth during simulated microgravity was not sufficient for the 2005 (28.5 ± 7.0 mm) and 2010 (32.9 ± 8.7 mm) guidelines, even with a mean range of elbow flexion of 15°. HR, V(E) and VO(2)peak increased to an average of 136 ± 22 bpm, 37.5 ± 10.3 L·min(−1), 20.5 ± 7.6 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) for 0.38G(z) and 161 ± 19 bpm, 58.1 ± 15.0 L·min(−1), 24.1 ± 5.6 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) for μG from a baseline of 84 ± 15 bpm, 11.4 ± 5.9 L·min(−1), 3.2 ± 1.1 mL·kg(−1)·min(-1), respectively. RPE was the only variable to increase with the 2010 guidelines. CONCLUSION: No additional physiological cost using the 2010 basic life support (BLS) guidelines was needed for healthy males performing ECCs for 1.5 min, independent of gravitational environment. This cost, however, increased for each condition tested when the two guidelines were compared. Effective ECCs were not achievable for both guidelines in simulated μG using the ER BLS method. This suggests that future implementation of an ER BLS in a simulated μG instruction programme as well as upper arm strength training is required to perform effective BLS in space. BioMed Central 2013-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3710155/ /pubmed/23849595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-7648-2-11 Text en Copyright © 2013 Russomano et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Russomano, Thais
Baers, Justin H
Velho, Rochelle
Cardoso, Ricardo B
Ashcroft, Alexandra
Rehnberg, Lucas
Gehrke, Rodrigo D
Dias, Mariana K P
Baptista, Rafael R
A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity
title A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity
title_full A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity
title_fullStr A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity
title_short A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity
title_sort comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710155/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-7648-2-11
work_keys_str_mv AT russomanothais acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT baersjustinh acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT velhorochelle acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT cardosoricardob acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT ashcroftalexandra acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT rehnberglucas acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT gehrkerodrigod acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT diasmarianakp acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT baptistarafaelr acomparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT russomanothais comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT baersjustinh comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT velhorochelle comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT cardosoricardob comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT ashcroftalexandra comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT rehnberglucas comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT gehrkerodrigod comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT diasmarianakp comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity
AT baptistarafaelr comparisonbetweenthe2010and2005basiclifesupportguidelinesduringsimulatedhypogravityandmicrogravity