Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020 Mar 04; 28(1):16.SJ

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. hendrik.drinhaus@uk-koeln.de. Fire Brigade, Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. hendrik.drinhaus@uk-koeln.de.Fire Brigade, Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. Fire Brigade, Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32131894

Citation

Drinhaus, Hendrik, et al. "Rescue Under Ongoing CPR From an Upper Floor: Evaluation of Three Different Evacuation Routes and Mechanical and Manual Chest Compressions: a Manikin Trial." Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, vol. 28, no. 1, 2020, p. 16.
Drinhaus H, Nüsgen S, Adams N, et al. Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020;28(1):16.
Drinhaus, H., Nüsgen, S., Adams, N., Wetsch, W. A., & Annecke, T. (2020). Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 28(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-0709-0
Drinhaus H, et al. Rescue Under Ongoing CPR From an Upper Floor: Evaluation of Three Different Evacuation Routes and Mechanical and Manual Chest Compressions: a Manikin Trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020 Mar 4;28(1):16. PubMed PMID: 32131894.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial. AU - Drinhaus,Hendrik, AU - Nüsgen,Sebastian, AU - Adams,Niels, AU - Wetsch,Wolfgang A, AU - Annecke,Thorsten, Y1 - 2020/03/04/ PY - 2019/10/17/received PY - 2020/02/05/accepted PY - 2020/3/6/entrez PY - 2020/3/7/pubmed PY - 2020/3/7/medline KW - Cardiopulmonary resuscitation KW - Emergency medical services KW - Fire service KW - Mechanical chest compressions KW - Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest KW - Transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation SP - 16 EP - 16 JF - Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine JO - Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med VL - 28 IS - 1 N2 - 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. SN - 1757-7241 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32131894/Rescue_under_ongoing_CPR_from_an_upper_floor:_evaluation_of_three_different_evacuation_routes_and_mechanical_and_manual_chest_compressions:_a_manikin_trial L2 - https://sjtrem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13049-020-0709-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.