We have located links that may give you full text access.
Physiological demands of quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed at simulated 3250 meters high. A pilot study.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2019 December 25
AIM: To analyse the effect of oxygen fraction reduction (O2 14%, equivalent to 3250 m) on Q-CPR and rescuers' physiological demands.
METHODOLOGY: A quasi-experimental study was carried out in a sample of 9 Q-CPR proficient health care professionals. Participants, in teams of 2 people, performed 10 min CPR on a Laerdal ResusciAnne mannequin (30:2 compression/ventilation ratio and alternating roles between rescuers every 2 min) in two simulated settings: T21-CPR at sea level (FiO2 of 21%) and T14 - CPR at 3250 m altitude (FiO2 of 14%). Effort self-perception was rated from 0 (no effort) to 10 (maximum demand) points.
RESULTS: Quality of chest compressions was good and similar in both conditions (T21 vs T14). However, the percentage of ventilations with adequate tidal volume was lower in altitude than at sea level conditions (35.9 ± 25.2% vs. 54.7 ± 23.2%, p = 0.035). The subjective perception of effort was significantly higher at simulated altitude (5 ± 2) than at sea level (3 ± 2) (p = 0.038). Maximum heart rate during the tests was similar in both conditions; however, mean oxygen saturation was significantly lower in altitude conditions (90.5 ± 2.5% vs. 99.3 ± 0.5%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Although performing CPR under simulated hypoxic altitude conditions significantly increases the physiological demands and subjective feeling of tiredness compared to sea level CPR, trained rescuers are able to deliver good Q-CPR in such conditions, at least in the first 10 min of resuscitation.
METHODOLOGY: A quasi-experimental study was carried out in a sample of 9 Q-CPR proficient health care professionals. Participants, in teams of 2 people, performed 10 min CPR on a Laerdal ResusciAnne mannequin (30:2 compression/ventilation ratio and alternating roles between rescuers every 2 min) in two simulated settings: T21-CPR at sea level (FiO2 of 21%) and T14 - CPR at 3250 m altitude (FiO2 of 14%). Effort self-perception was rated from 0 (no effort) to 10 (maximum demand) points.
RESULTS: Quality of chest compressions was good and similar in both conditions (T21 vs T14). However, the percentage of ventilations with adequate tidal volume was lower in altitude than at sea level conditions (35.9 ± 25.2% vs. 54.7 ± 23.2%, p = 0.035). The subjective perception of effort was significantly higher at simulated altitude (5 ± 2) than at sea level (3 ± 2) (p = 0.038). Maximum heart rate during the tests was similar in both conditions; however, mean oxygen saturation was significantly lower in altitude conditions (90.5 ± 2.5% vs. 99.3 ± 0.5%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Although performing CPR under simulated hypoxic altitude conditions significantly increases the physiological demands and subjective feeling of tiredness compared to sea level CPR, trained rescuers are able to deliver good Q-CPR in such conditions, at least in the first 10 min of resuscitation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app