Cargando…
Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial
BACKGROUND: If transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from an upper floor is indicated, the ideal CPR-method and evacuation route is unknown hitherto. We aimed to elaborate a strategy for evacuation of patients under ongoing CPR from an upper floor, comparing three different eva...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055089/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32131894 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-0709-0 |
_version_ | 1783503306333618176 |
---|---|
author | Drinhaus, Hendrik Nüsgen, Sebastian Adams, Niels Wetsch, Wolfgang A. Annecke, Thorsten |
author_facet | Drinhaus, Hendrik Nüsgen, Sebastian Adams, Niels Wetsch, Wolfgang A. Annecke, Thorsten |
author_sort | Drinhaus, Hendrik |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: If transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from an upper floor is indicated, the ideal CPR-method and evacuation route is unknown hitherto. We aimed to elaborate a strategy for evacuation of patients under ongoing CPR from an upper floor, comparing three different evacuation routes and manual and mechanical chest compressions. METHODS: A CPR-training manikin recording CPR-quality was placed on the fifth floor and was evacuated to an ambulance via lift, turntable ladder, or staircase. Chest compressions were performed manually or with a mechanical CPR-device. Efficiency endpoints were compression depth and frequency, sufficiency of chest release, compared with European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines, and duration of the evacuation. Adverse outcomes were disconnection/dislocation of devices and hazards/accidents to the personnel. RESULTS: For all evacuation routes, compression depth and frequency were significantly more compliant with ERC-guidelines under mechanical CPR. Manual CPR was associated with considerable deviations from correct compression depth and frequency. Chest release only slightly differed between groups. Evacuation via lift under mechanical CPR was fastest and evacuation via turntable ladder under manual CPR was slowest. No device disconnections or accidents occurred, but hazard to personnel was perceived during evacuation via ladder under manual CPR. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a mechanical CPR-device proved to deliver better CPR-quality during evacuation from an upper floor. If a lift accessible with a stretcher is available, this route should be preferred, regardless of manual or mechanical CPR. Turntable ladders can only be meaningfully used with mechanical CPR, otherwise CPR-quality is poor and hazard to the personnel is increased. Not all evacuation routes may be useable in a specific real-life scenario. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Registry, www.drks.de, registration number DRKS00012885, registration date 17.08.2017. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7055089 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70550892020-03-10 Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial Drinhaus, Hendrik Nüsgen, Sebastian Adams, Niels Wetsch, Wolfgang A. Annecke, Thorsten Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: If transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from an upper floor is indicated, the ideal CPR-method and evacuation route is unknown hitherto. We aimed to elaborate a strategy for evacuation of patients under ongoing CPR from an upper floor, comparing three different evacuation routes and manual and mechanical chest compressions. METHODS: A CPR-training manikin recording CPR-quality was placed on the fifth floor and was evacuated to an ambulance via lift, turntable ladder, or staircase. Chest compressions were performed manually or with a mechanical CPR-device. Efficiency endpoints were compression depth and frequency, sufficiency of chest release, compared with European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines, and duration of the evacuation. Adverse outcomes were disconnection/dislocation of devices and hazards/accidents to the personnel. RESULTS: For all evacuation routes, compression depth and frequency were significantly more compliant with ERC-guidelines under mechanical CPR. Manual CPR was associated with considerable deviations from correct compression depth and frequency. Chest release only slightly differed between groups. Evacuation via lift under mechanical CPR was fastest and evacuation via turntable ladder under manual CPR was slowest. No device disconnections or accidents occurred, but hazard to personnel was perceived during evacuation via ladder under manual CPR. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a mechanical CPR-device proved to deliver better CPR-quality during evacuation from an upper floor. If a lift accessible with a stretcher is available, this route should be preferred, regardless of manual or mechanical CPR. Turntable ladders can only be meaningfully used with mechanical CPR, otherwise CPR-quality is poor and hazard to the personnel is increased. Not all evacuation routes may be useable in a specific real-life scenario. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Registry, www.drks.de, registration number DRKS00012885, registration date 17.08.2017. BioMed Central 2020-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7055089/ /pubmed/32131894 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-0709-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Drinhaus, Hendrik Nüsgen, Sebastian Adams, Niels Wetsch, Wolfgang A. Annecke, Thorsten Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial |
title | Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial |
title_full | Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial |
title_fullStr | Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial |
title_short | Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial |
title_sort | rescue under ongoing cpr from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055089/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32131894 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-0709-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT drinhaushendrik rescueunderongoingcprfromanupperfloorevaluationofthreedifferentevacuationroutesandmechanicalandmanualchestcompressionsamanikintrial AT nusgensebastian rescueunderongoingcprfromanupperfloorevaluationofthreedifferentevacuationroutesandmechanicalandmanualchestcompressionsamanikintrial AT adamsniels rescueunderongoingcprfromanupperfloorevaluationofthreedifferentevacuationroutesandmechanicalandmanualchestcompressionsamanikintrial AT wetschwolfganga rescueunderongoingcprfromanupperfloorevaluationofthreedifferentevacuationroutesandmechanicalandmanualchestcompressionsamanikintrial AT anneckethorsten rescueunderongoingcprfromanupperfloorevaluationofthreedifferentevacuationroutesandmechanicalandmanualchestcompressionsamanikintrial |