Developing, Implementing, and Applying Novel Techniques During Systematic Reviews of Primary Space Medicine Data.

BACKGROUND: The Aerospace Medicine Systematic Review Group was set up in 2016 to facilitate high quality and transparent synthesis of primary data to enable evidence-based practice. The group identified many research methods specific to space medicine that need consideration for systematic review methods. The group has developed space medicine specific methods to address this and trialed usage of these methods across seven published systematic reviews. This paper outlines evolution of space medicine synthesis methods and discussion of their initial application.METHODS: Space medicine systematic review guidance has been developed for protocol planning, quantitative and qualitative synthesis, sourcing gray data, and assessing quality and transferability of space medicine human spaceflight simulation study environments.RESULTS: Decision algorithms for guidance and tool usage were created based on usage. Six reviews used quantitative methods in which no meta-analyses were possible due to lack of controlled trials or reporting issues. All reviews scored the quality and transferability of space simulation environments. One review was qualitative. Several research gaps were identified.CONCLUSION: Successful use of the developed methods demonstrates usability and initial validity. The current space medicine evidence base resulting in no meta-analyses being possible shows the need for standardized guidance on how to synthesize data in this field. It also provides evidence to call for increasing use of controlled trials, standardizing outcome measures, and improving minimum reporting standards. Space medicine is a unique field of medical research that requires specific systematic review methods.Winnard A, Caplan N, Bruce-Martin C, Swain P, Velho R, Meroni R, Wotring V, Damann V, Weber T, Evetts S, Laws J. Developing, implementing, and applying novel techniques during systematic reviews of primary space medicine data. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(8):681688.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during spaceflight - a guideline for CPR in microgravity from the German Society of Aerospace Medicine (DGLRM) and the European Society of Aerospace Medicine Space Medicine Group (ESAM-SMG).

BACKGROUND: With the "Artemis"-mission mankind will return to the Moon by 2024. Prolonged periods in space will not only present physical and psychological challenges to the astronauts, but also pose risks concerning the medical treatment capabilities of the crew. So far, no guideline exists for the treatment of severe medical emergencies in microgravity. We, as a international group of researchers related to the field of aerospace medicine and critical care, took on the challenge and developed a an evidence-based guideline for the arguably most severe medical emergency - cardiac arrest. METHODS: After the creation of said international group, PICO questions regarding the topic cardiopulmonary resuscitation in microgravity were developed to guide the systematic literature research. Afterwards a precise search strategy was compiled which was then applied to "MEDLINE". Four thousand one hundred sixty-five findings were retrieved and consecutively screened by at least 2 reviewers. This led to 88 original publications that were acquired in full-text version and then critically appraised using the GRADE methodology. Those studies formed to basis for the guideline recommendations that were designed by at least 2 experts on the given field. Afterwards those recommendations were subject to a consensus finding process according to the DELPHI-methodology. RESULTS: We recommend a differentiated approach to CPR in microgravity with a division into basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS) similar to the Earth-based guidelines. In immediate BLS, the chest compression method of choice is the Evetts-Russomano method (ER), whereas in an ALS scenario, with the patient being restrained on the Crew Medical Restraint System, the handstand method (HS) should be applied. Airway management should only be performed if at least two rescuers are present and the patient has been restrained. A supraglottic airway device should be used for airway management where crew members untrained in tracheal intubation (TI) are involved. DISCUSSION: CPR in microgravity is feasible and should be applied according to the Earth-based guidelines of the AHA/ERC in relation to fundamental statements, like urgent recognition and action, focus on high-quality chest compressions, compression depth and compression-ventilation ratio. However, the special circumstances presented by microgravity and spaceflight must be considered concerning central points such as rescuer position and methods for the performance of chest compressions, airway management and defibrillation.

A comparison of exercise interventions from bed rest studies for the prevention of musculoskeletal loss.

Musculoskeletal loss in actual or simulated microgravity occurs at a high rate. Bed rest studies are a reliable ground-based spaceflight analogue that allow for direct comparison of intervention and control participants. The aim of this review was to investigate the impact of exercise compared to no intervention on bone mineral density (BMD) and muscle cross-sectional area (muscle CSA) in bed rest studies relative to other terrestrial models. Eligible bed rest studies with healthy participants had an intervention arm with an exercise countermeasure and a control arm. A search strategy was implemented for MEDLINE. After screening, eight studies were identified for inclusion. Interventions included resistive exercise (RE), resistive vibration exercise (RVE), flywheel resistive exercise, treadmill exercise with lower body negative pressure (LBNP) and a zero-gravity locomotion simulator (ZLS). Lower limb skeletal sites had the most significant BMD losses, particularly at the hip which reduced in density by 4.59% (p < 0.05) and the tibial epiphysis by 6% (p < 0.05). Exercise attenuated bone loss at the hip and distal tibia compared to controls (p < 0.05). Muscle CSA changes indicated that the calf and quadriceps were most affected by bed rest. Exercise interventions significantly attenuated loss of muscle mass. ZLS, LBNP treadmill and RE significantly attenuated bone and muscle loss at the hip compared to baseline and controls. Despite exercise intervention, high rates of bone loss were still observed. Future studies should consider adding bisphosphonates and pharmacological/nutrition-based interventions for consideration of longer-duration missions. These findings correlate to terrestrial bed rest settings, for example, stroke or spinal-injury patients.

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device. DESIGN: Randomised controlled manikin trial. SETTING: Large teaching hospital in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were health professionals with intermediate or advanced resuscitation training. INTERVENTIONS: Teams were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard mechanical chest compression device training or pit-crew device training. Training interventions lasted up to 1 h. Performance was measured immediately after training in a standardised simulated cardiac arrest scenario in which teams were required to deploy a mechanical chest compression device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and mechanical device deployment metrics, and non-technical skill performance. Outcomes were assessed using video recordings of the test scenario. RESULTS: In relation to the primary outcome of chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression, we found that pit-crew training was not superior to standard training (0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79) vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82), mean difference -0.01 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.03), P=0.572). There was also no difference between groups in performance in relation to any secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Pit-crew training, compared with standard training, did not improve team deployment of a mechanical chest device in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43049287; Pre-results.

Diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obese adolescents aged 12 to 17 years.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent overweight and obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with short- and long-term health consequences. Modifying known dietary and behavioural risk factors through behaviour changing interventions (BCI) may help to reduce childhood overweight and obesity. This is an update of a review published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obese adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP Search Portal. We checked references of identified studies and systematic reviews. There were no language restrictions. The date of the last search was July 2016 for all databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for treating overweight or obesity in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument and extracted data following the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted trial authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 completed RCTs (4781 participants) and 50 ongoing studies. The number of participants in each trial varied (10 to 521) as did the length of follow-up (6 to 24 months). Participants ages ranged from 12 to 17.5 years in all trials that reported mean age at baseline. Most of the trials used a multidisciplinary intervention with a combination of diet, physical activity and behavioural components. The content and duration of the intervention, its delivery and the comparators varied across trials. The studies contributing most information to outcomes of weight and body mass index (BMI) were from studies at a low risk of bias, but studies with a high risk of bias provided data on adverse events and quality of life.The mean difference (MD) of the change in BMI at the longest follow-up period in favour of BCI was -1.18 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.67 to -0.69); 2774 participants; 28 trials; low quality evidence. BCI lowered the change in BMI z score by -0.13 units (95% CI -0.21 to -0.05); 2399 participants; 20 trials; low quality evidence. BCI lowered body weight by -3.67 kg (95% CI -5.21 to -2.13); 1993 participants; 20 trials; moderate quality evidence. The effect on weight measures persisted in trials with 18 to 24 months' follow-up for both BMI (MD -1.49 kg/m2 (95% CI -2.56 to -0.41); 760 participants; 6 trials and BMI z score MD -0.34 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.02); 602 participants; 5 trials).There were subgroup differences showing larger effects for both BMI and BMI z score in studies comparing interventions with no intervention/wait list control or usual care, compared with those testing concomitant interventions delivered to both the intervention and control group. There were no subgroup differences between interventions with and without parental involvement or by intervention type or setting (health care, community, school) or mode of delivery (individual versus group).The rate of adverse events in intervention and control groups was unclear with only five trials reporting harms, and of these, details were provided in only one (low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity or socioeconomic effects.BCIs at the longest follow-up moderately improved adolescent's health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference 0.44 ((95% CI 0.09 to 0.79); P = 0.01; 972 participants; 7 trials; 8 comparisons; low quality of evidence) but not self-esteem.Trials were inconsistent in how they measured dietary intake, dietary behaviours, physical activity and behaviour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality evidence that multidisciplinary interventions involving a combination of diet, physical activity and behavioural components reduce measures of BMI and moderate quality evidence that they reduce weight in overweight or obese adolescents, mainly when compared with no treatment or waiting list controls. Inconsistent results, risk of bias or indirectness of outcome measures used mean that the evidence should be interpreted with caution. We have identified a large number of ongoing trials (50) which we will include in future updates of this review.

Three methods of manual external chest compressions during microgravity simulation.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in microgravity is challenging. There are three single-person CPR techniques that can be performed in microgravity: the Evetts-Russomano (ER), Handstand (HS), and Reverse Bear Hug (RBH). All three methods have been evaluated in parabolic flights, but only the ER method has been shown to be effective in prolonged microgravity simulation. All three methods of CPR have yet to be evaluated using the current 2010 guidelines. METHODS: There were 23 male subjects who were recruited to perform simulated terrestrial CPR (+1 G(z)) and the three microgravity CPR methods for four sets of external chest compressions (ECC). To simulate microgravity, the subjects used a body suspension device (BSD) and trolley system. True depth (D(T)), ECC rate, and oxygen consumption (Vo2) were measured. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) D(T) for the ER (37.4 +/- 1.5 mm) and RBH methods (23.9 +/- 1.4 mm) were significantly lower than +1 G(z) CPR. However, both methods attained an ECC rate that met the guidelines (105.6 +/- 0.8; 101.3 +/- 1.5 compressions/min). The HS method achieved a superior D(T) (49.3 +/- 1.2 mm), but a poor ECC rate (91.9 +/- 2.2 compressions/min). Vo2 for ER and HS was higher than +1 Gz; however, the RBH was not. CONCLUSION: All three methods have merit in performing ECC in simulated microgravity; the ER and RBH have adequate ECC rates, and the HS method has adequate D(T). However, all methods failed to meet all criteria for the 2010 guidelines. Further research to evaluate the most effective method of CPR in microgravity is needed.

A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity.

BACKGROUND: Current 2010 terrestrial (1Gz) CPR guidelines have been advocated by space agencies for hypogravity and microgravity environments, but may not be feasible. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate rescuer performance over 1.5 min of external chest compressions (ECCs) during simulated Martian hypogravity (0.38Gz) and microgravity (µG) in relation to 1Gz and rest baseline and (2) compare the physiological costs of conducting ECCs in accordance with the 2010 and 2005 CPR guidelines. METHODS: Thirty healthy male volunteers, ranging from 17 to 30 years, performed four sets of 30 ECCs for 1.5 min using the 2010 and 2005 ECC guidelines during 1Gz, 0.38Gz and µG simulations (Evetts-Russomano (ER) method), achieved by the use of a body suspension device. ECC depth and rate, range of elbow flexion, post-ECC heart rate (HR), minute ventilation (VE), peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured. RESULTS: All volunteers completed the study. Mean ECC rate was achieved for all gravitational conditions, but true depth during simulated microgravity was not sufficient for the 2005 (28.5 ± 7.0 mm) and 2010 (32.9 ± 8.7 mm) guidelines, even with a mean range of elbow flexion of 15°. HR, VE and VO2peak increased to an average of 136 ± 22 bpm, 37.5 ± 10.3 L·min-1, 20.5 ± 7.6 mL·kg-1·min-1 for 0.38Gz and 161 ± 19 bpm, 58.1 ± 15.0 L·min-1, 24.1 ± 5.6 mL·kg-1·min-1 for µG from a baseline of 84 ± 15 bpm, 11.4 ± 5.9 L·min-1, 3.2 ± 1.1 mL·kg-1·min-1, respectively. RPE was the only variable to increase with the 2010 guidelines. CONCLUSION: No additional physiological cost using the 2010 basic life support (BLS) guidelines was needed for healthy males performing ECCs for 1.5 min, independent of gravitational environment. This cost, however, increased for each condition tested when the two guidelines were compared. Effective ECCs were not achievable for both guidelines in simulated µG using the ER BLS method. This suggests that future implementation of an ER BLS in a simulated µG instruction programme as well as upper arm strength training is required to perform effective BLS in space.