Tourniquet application in time-critical aquatic emergencies on a moving rescue water craft (RWC): Can speed and precision coexist?

Lifeguards are the first responders to any type of aquatic incident, including rapid rescue situations such as boating and sporting accidents, animal bites/attacks, and cases involving massive bleeding. In their line of work, rescue boats such as Rescue Water Craft (RWC) are commonly utilized the aim of this study is to evaluate the time and technique of placing a tourniquet on the sled of an RWC navigating at full speed. METHODS: A randomized crossover study design was used with a sample of 44 lifeguards. The inclusion criteria required that participants be certified lifeguards with experience in RWC operations and possess knowledge of responding to massive bleeding. Two CAT tourniquet placement tests were performed. In the 1) Beach-Tourniquet (B-TQ) test: it was performed on land and in the 2) Rescue Water Craft-tourniquet (RWC-TQ) test, sailing at a cruising speed of 20 knots. The evaluation was recorded in a checklist on the steps and timing of the correct application TQ by direct observation by an expert instructor. RESULTS: The tourniquet placement on RWC was an average of 11 s slower than when placed on the beach (BT-TQ 35.7 ± 8.0 vs. 46.1 ± 10.9 s, p > 0.001). In the percentage analysis of the results on correct execution of the skills, higher values are obtained for the B-TQ test than in RWC-TQ in Distance to the wound (into 5-7 cm), band adjustment, checking the radial pulse and reporting the time of tourniquet placement (p > 0.005). CONCLUSION: The placement of a tourniquet on a RWC navigating at 20 knots is feasible, relatively quick, and technically well executed.

Evaluation of the thoracic compression technique using APPs. Do they help or hinder cardiopulmonary resuscitation? / Evaluación sobre la técnica de compresiones torácicas usando APP. ¿Ayudan o entorpecen la reanimación cardiopulmonar?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by lay people when guided by a mobile phone application with real-time feedback, with the comparison of three different mobile phone applications (APPs). DESIGN: A cross-sectional quasi-experimental study was carried out. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 113 nursing students participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Three hands-only CPR tests with continuous compressions were performed: (i)without external help; (ii)with the mobile phone turned off; and (iii)guided by APP. Three different APPs were randomly assigned (Pocket CPR®, CPR Pro®> and Massage cardiaque et DSA®). The mannequin Laerdal Resusci Anne QCPR (Stavanger, Norway) 2.0.0.14 software was used. VARIABLES OF PRIMARY INTEREST: APPs used. Demographic variables characterizing the study sample. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: mean depth, mean rate, percentage of correct hand positioning, percentage of compressions with correct re-expansion, percentage of compressions with correct depth, percentage of compressions at the correct rate, and overall quality of CPR. RESULTS: Overall CPR quality was 33.3% ± 32.7 using Pocket CPR, 10.9% ± 22.72% using CPR Pro and 7.8% ± 9.2 using Massage cardiaque et DSA. None of the APPs produced a statistically significant improvement. The percentage of time that the resuscitator managed to maintain a correct compression rate improved when using all three APPs. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation guided by phone APPs did not improve the overall quality of compressions during resuscitation, though it improved the percentage of compressions performed at the correct rate.

[Sedation in spinal anesthesia. Comparison of remifentanil and propofol]. / Estudio comparativo entre remifentanilo y propofol para la sedación en anestesia subaracnoidea.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil for analgesia and sedation during subarachnoidea anesthesia, and to compare remifentanil with propofol. METHOD: Ninety ASA I-III patients undergoing orthopedic or traumatologic surgery under subarachnoid anesthesia were enrolled for prospective study and randomly assigned to two treatment groups. The propofol group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 mg/kg followed by infusion at 3 mg/kg/h. The remifentanil group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 microgram/kg followed by infusion at 0.1 microgram/kg/min. We evaluated quality of sedation, pain intensity during nerve blockade, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and time until recovery. RESULTS: The remifentanil group experienced less moderate-to-intense pain (13%) than did the propofol group (63%) (p < 0.01). Sedation was adequate in both groups and was easy to control by adjusting the rate of infusion. Times until recovery of consciousness and respiratory frequency after withdrawal of infusion until recovery of baseline levels were 7.87 +/- 3.54 min and 5.22 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the remifentanil group and 8.72 +/- 4.59 min and 5.36 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the propofol group, respectively. Patients in the remifentanil group experienced a significantly greater decrease in SpO2 than did those in the propofol group (20% and 4%, respectively; p < 0.05). Mean blood pressure was higher for patients treated with remifentanil. The incidence of vomiting was also higher in the remifentanil group than in the propofol group (9% vs 0%). CONCLUSION: Remifentanil is more effective in reducing pain related to nerve blockade and level of sedation is lower; however remifentanil is associated with a higher incidence of respiratory depression and vomiting.