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

Abstract 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 cr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bernd Wallner, Luca Moroder, Hannah Salchner, Peter Mair, Stefanie Wallner, Gabriel Putzer, Giacomo Strapazzon, Markus Falk, Hermann Brugger
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-09-01
Series:Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00944-9
Description
Summary:Abstract 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.
ISSN:1757-7241