Cargando…

CPR with restricted patient access using alternative rescuer positions: a randomised cross-over manikin study simulating the CPR scenario after avalanche burial

BACKGROUND: The aim of this manikin study was to evaluate the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with restricted patient access during simulated avalanche rescue using over-the-head and straddle position as compared to standard position. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised cross-ove...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wallner, Bernd, Moroder, Luca, Salchner, Hannah, Mair, Peter, Wallner, Stefanie, Putzer, Gabriel, Strapazzon, Giacomo, Falk, Markus, Brugger, Hermann
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8418718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34481521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00944-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The aim of this manikin study was to evaluate the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with restricted patient access during simulated avalanche rescue using over-the-head and straddle position as compared to standard position. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised cross-over study, 25 medical students (64% male, mean age 24) performed single-rescuer CPR with restricted patient access in over-the-head and straddle position using mouth-to-mouth ventilation or pocket mask ventilation. Chest compression depth, rate, hand position, recoil, compression/decompression ratio, hands-off times, tidal volume of ventilation and gastric insufflation were compared to CPR with unrestricted patient access in standard position. RESULTS: Only 28% of all tidal volumes conformed to the guidelines (400–800 ml), 59% were below 400 ml and 13% were above 800 ml. There was no significant difference in ventilation parameters when comparing standard to atypical rescuer positions. Participants performed sufficient chest compressions depth in 98.1%, a minimum rate in 94.7%, correct compression recoil in 43.8% and correct hand position in 97.3% with no difference between standard and atypical rescuer positions. In 36.9% hands-off times were longer than 9 s. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of CPR from an atypical rescuer position with restricted patient access is comparable to CPR in standard rescuer position. Our data suggest to start basic life-support before complete extrication in order to reduce the duration of untreated cardiac arrest in avalanche rescue. Ventilation quality provided by lay rescuers may be a limiting factor in resuscitation situations where rescue ventilation is considered essential.