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

Niels Adams¹  Hendrik Drinhaus¹  Thorsten Annecke¹  Wolfgang A. Wetsch¹  Sebastian Nüsgen² 

[1] Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne;Fire Brigade;

关键词: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest;    Cardiopulmonary resuscitation;    Emergency medical services;    Transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation;    Fire service;    Mechanical chest compressions;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13049-020-0709-0

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

Unknown