Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Emergency Medical Services Vienna, Radetzkystraße 1, 1030 Vienna, Austria; PULS-Austrian Cardiac Arrest Awareness Association, Lichtentaler Gasse 4/1/R03, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Resuscitation. 2021 Mar;160:79-83. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.01.021. Epub 2021 Jan 30.
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.
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 CO.
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 etCO. 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)).
PPE including masks with and without expiration valve is safe for use without concerns regarding the impairment of CPR quality.
先前的研究表明,个人防护设备的使用可能会影响重症监护的质量。我们调查了个人防护设备对院外心肺复苏的影响。
随机对照非劣效性三交叉研究。48 名急救医疗服务提供者随机分成两人一组,在爬上 3 层楼梯后,在人体模型上进行 12 分钟的基础生命支持(BLS)。以随机顺序完成三个场景:不使用个人防护设备、使用包括带阀过滤面罩(FFP)2 口罩的个人防护设备和使用不带阀的 FFP2 口罩的个人防护设备。主要结局是预先设定的非劣效性边界为 3.5mm 的平均胸部按压深度。次要结局包括其他 CPR 质量测量、提供者的主观疲劳水平以及提供者的生命体征,包括呼气末 CO。
与对照组相比,个人防护设备无阀(绝对差异 1mm,95%CI[-1,2])和个人防护设备有阀(绝对差异 1mm,[-0.2,2])的主要结局差异均远低于预先设定的非劣效性边界。这对于胸部按压质量和包括 etCO 在内的提供者生命体征的次要结局也是如此。BLS 后个人防护设备组(无阀 Borg 4(SD 3),有阀 Borg 4(SD 2))的主观身体疲劳高于对照组(Borg 3(SD 2))。
包括带阀和不带阀的口罩在内的个人防护设备在不影响 CPR 质量的情况下安全使用,无需担心。