Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32131894›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2020

Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial.

Hendrik Drinhaus, Sebastian Nüsgen, Niels Adams, Wolfgang A Wetsch, Thorsten Annecke

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hendrik DrinhausDepartment 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.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8435-2246
Sebastian NüsgenFire Brigade, Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Niels AdamsDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Wolfgang A WetschDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Thorsten AnneckeDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIf 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsFor 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.

conclusionsIn 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 registrationGerman Clinical Trials Registry, www.drks.de, registration number DRKS00012885, registration date 17.08.2017.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesRescue WorkAdolescentAdultAllied Health PersonnelCardiopulmonary ResuscitationFemaleGermanyHumansMaleManikinsMiddle AgedOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestSimulation TrainingYoung AdultCardiopulmonary resuscitationEmergency medical servicesFire serviceMechanical chest compressionsOut-of-hospital cardiac arrestTransport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Identifiers

PMID32131894
PMCPMC7055089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.