CONTEXT: Transport of patients during resuscitation is a critical procedure. In both, ambulances and helicopters the quality of resuscitation is potentially hampered due to the movement of the vehicle and confined space. To date, however, no direct comparison of the quality of resuscitation at the scene, during a helicopter flight and in a moving ambulance has been made. OBJECTIVE: Direct comparison of the quality of resuscitation at the scene, during a helicopter flight and in a moving ambulance. DESIGN: The study was performed in July 2005 as a randomised cross-over trial comparing different environments for resuscitation. SETTING:Medical University of Vienna. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven European Resuscitation Council (ERC) approved health care professionals. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions during resuscitation: (a) in a moving ambulance, (b) in a flying helicopter, were compared to those staying at the (c) scene (control). Each participant performed resuscitation in all three environments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of chest compression during resuscitation. RESULTS: Compared to resuscitation at the scene, efficiency of chest compressions during a helicopter flight was 86% and 95% in the moving ambulance 95%. There were no differences in secondary outcomes (time without chest compression, total number of incorrect hand position relative to total compressions, and total number of incorrect pressure release relative to total compressions). CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation during transport is feasible and relatively efficient. There is some difference between the environments, but there is no relevant difference between helicopters and ambulances regarding the effectiveness of CPR.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Transport of patients during resuscitation is a critical procedure. In both, ambulances and helicopters the quality of resuscitation is potentially hampered due to the movement of the vehicle and confined space. To date, however, no direct comparison of the quality of resuscitation at the scene, during a helicopter flight and in a moving ambulance has been made. OBJECTIVE: Direct comparison of the quality of resuscitation at the scene, during a helicopter flight and in a moving ambulance. DESIGN: The study was performed in July 2005 as a randomised cross-over trial comparing different environments for resuscitation. SETTING: Medical University of Vienna. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven European Resuscitation Council (ERC) approved health care professionals. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions during resuscitation: (a) in a moving ambulance, (b) in a flying helicopter, were compared to those staying at the (c) scene (control). Each participant performed resuscitation in all three environments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of chest compression during resuscitation. RESULTS: Compared to resuscitation at the scene, efficiency of chest compressions during a helicopter flight was 86% and 95% in the moving ambulance 95%. There were no differences in secondary outcomes (time without chest compression, total number of incorrect hand position relative to total compressions, and total number of incorrect pressure release relative to total compressions). CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation during transport is feasible and relatively efficient. There is some difference between the environments, but there is no relevant difference between helicopters and ambulances regarding the effectiveness of CPR.
Authors: Jochen Hinkelbein; Lennert Böhm; Stefan Braunecker; Harald V Genzwürker; Steffen Kalina; Fabrizio Cirillo; Matthieu Komorowski; Andreas Hohn; Jörg Siedenburg; Michael Bernhard; Ilse Janicke; Christoph Adler; Stefanie Jansen; Eckard Glaser; Pawel Krawczyk; Mirko Miesen; Janusz Andres; Edoardo De Robertis; Christopher Neuhaus Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Sebastian G Russo; Peter Neumann; Sylvia Reinhardt; Arnd Timmermann; André Niklas; Michael Quintel; Christoph B Eich Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2011-11-04
Authors: Christy L Hopkins; Chris Burk; Shane Moser; Jack Meersman; Clair Baldwin; Scott T Youngquist Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Urs Pietsch; David Reiser; Volker Wenzel; Jürgen Knapp; Mario Tissi; Lorenz Theiler; Simon Rauch; Lorenz Meuli; Roland Albrecht Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Jin Ho Beom; Min Joung Kim; Je Sung You; Hye Sun Lee; Ji Hoon Kim; Yoo Seok Park; Dong Min Shin; Hyun Soo Chung Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Roman Fleischhackl; Alexander Nuernberger; Fritz Sterz; Christina Schoenberg; Tania Urso; Tanja Habart; Martina Mittlboeck; Nisha Chandra-Strobos Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 9.097