Medizinische Universität Graz - Research portal

Go directly to the nagivation.
Go directly to the content.

Navigation/Search

Selected Publication:

SHR Neuro Cancer Cardio Lipid Metab Microb

Kienbacher, CL; Grafeneder, J; Tscherny, K; Krammel, M; Fuhrmann, V; Niederer, M; Neudorfsky, S; Herbich, K; Schreiber, W; Herkner, H; Roth, D.
The use of personal protection equipment does not impair the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A prospective triple-cross over randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.
Resuscitation. 2021; 160: 79-83. Doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.01.021
Web of Science PubMed FullText FullText_MUG

Co-authors Med Uni Graz: Niederer Maximilian
Altmetrics:
Dimensions Citations:
Plum Analytics:
Scite (citation analytics):
Abstract:: AIM: Prior studies suggest that the use of personal protective equipment might impair the quality of critical care. We investigated the influence of personal protective equipment on out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: Randomised controlled non-inferiority triple-crossover study. Forty-eight emergency medical service providers, randomized into teams of two, performed 12 min of basic life support (BLS) on a manikin after climbing 3 flights of stairs. Three scenarios were completed in a randomised order: Without personal protective equipment, with personal protective equipment including a filtering face piece (FFP) 2 mask with valve, and with personal protective equipment including an FFP2 mask without valve. The primary outcome was mean depth of chest compressions with a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 3.5 mm. Secondary outcomes included other measurements of CPR quality, providers' subjective exhaustion levels, and providers' vital signs, including end-tidal CO₂. RESULTS: Differences regarding the primary outcome were well below the pre-defined non-inferiority margins for both control vs. personal protective equipment without valve (absolute difference 1 mm, 95% CI [-1, 2]) and control vs. personal protective equipment with valve (absolute difference 1 mm, [-0.2, 2]). This was also true for secondary outcomes regarding quality of chest compressions and providers' vital signs including etCO₂. Subjective physical strain after BLS was higher in the personal protective equipment groups (Borg 4 (SD 3) without valve, 4 (SD 2) with valve) than in the control group (Borg 3 (SD 2)). CONCLUSION: PPE including masks with and without expiration valve is safe for use without concerns regarding the impairment of CPR quality.
Find related publications in this database (using NLM MeSH Indexing): Adult - administration & dosage; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - administration & dosage; Cross-Over Studies - administration & dosage; Emergency Medical Services - administration & dosage; Female - administration & dosage; Humans - administration & dosage; Male - administration & dosage; Manikins - administration & dosage; Personal Protective Equipment - administration & dosage; Prospective Studies - administration & dosage; Quality of Health Care - administration & dosage; Young Adult - administration & dosage
Find related publications in this database (Keywords): Emergency medical services; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Chest compressions; Personal protective equipment; COVID-19; Manikin; Simulation