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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |