A 2-year prospective evaluation of airway clearance devices in foreign body airway obstructions.

Aim: To collect, analyze and report the first prospective, industry-independent, data on airway clearance devices as novel foreign body airway obstruction interventions. Methods: We recruited adult airway clearance device users between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2023 using a centralized website and email follow-up. The data collection tool captured patient, responder, situation, and outcome variables. Multi-step respondent validation occurred using electronic and geolocation verification, a random selection follow-up process, and physician review of all submitted cases. Results: We recruited 186 airway clearance device users (LifeVac©:157 [84.4%]; Dechoker©:29 [15.6%]). LifeVac© was the last intervention before foreign body airway obstruction relief in 151 of 157 cases. Of these, 150 survived to discharge. A basic life support intervention was used before LifeVac© in 119 cases, including the 6 cases where LifeVac© also failed. We identified two adverse events using LifeVac© (perioral bruising), while we could not ascertain whether another 7 were due to the foreign body or LifeVac© (3 = airway edema; 3 = oropharyngeal abrasions; 1 = esophageal perforation). Dechoker© was the last intervention before obstruction relief in 27 of 29 cases and all cases survived. A basic life support intervention was used before Dechoker© in 21 cases, including both where Dechoker© also failed. We identified one adverse event using Dechoker© (oropharyngeal abrasions). Conclusion: Within these cases, airway clearance devices appear to be effective at relieving foreign body airway obstructions. However, this data should be considered preliminary and hypothesis generating due to several limitations. We urge the resuscitation community to proactively evaluate airway clearance devices to ensure the public remains updated with best practices.

A systematic review of interventions for resuscitation following drowning.

Objectives: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key resuscitation interventions: 1) immediate versus delayed resuscitation; (2) compression first versus ventilation first strategy; (3) compression-only CPR versus standard CPR (compressions and ventilations); (4) ventilation with and without equipment; (5) oxygen administration prior to hospital arrival; (6) automated external defibrillation first versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation first strategy; (7) public access defibrillation programmes. Methods: The review included studies relating to adults and children who had sustained a cardiac arrest following drowning with control groups and reported patient outcomes. Searches were run from database inception through to April 2023. The following databases were searched Ovid MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The findings are reported as a narrative synthesis. Results: Three studies were included for two of the seven interventions (2,451 patients). No randomised controlled trials were identified. A retrospective observational study reported in-water resuscitation with rescue breaths improved patient outcomes compared to delayed resuscitation on land (n = 46 patients, very low certainty of evidence). The two observational studies (n = 2,405 patients), comparing compression-only with standard resuscitation, reported no difference for most outcomes. A statistically higher rate of survival to hospital discharge was reported for the standard resuscitation group in one of these studies (29.7% versus 18.1%, adjusted odds ratio 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.01-2.36) (very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: The key finding of this systematic review is the paucity of evidence, with control groups, to inform treatment guidelines for resuscitation in drowning.

Deaths in Open Water Swimming Races in Brazil from 2009 to 2019.

Since the inclusion in the Olympic Games (2008), open swimming races have attracted greater media attention and, therefore, have a greater number of practitioners, especially in Brazil, an extremely favorable country for this sport. However, increasing reports of fatal incidents in open water races brought the medical and scientific community to attention. The aim of this study was to review the characteristics of deaths in open waters events in Brazil from 2009 to 2019. The survey was divided into 3 steps: 1) contacting sports-related federations and companies, including swimming and triathlon federations, master associations and event organizing companies; 2) internet search; and 3) personal communication with athletes, coaches, organizers, and health personnel. A total of 12 deaths were observed in open water swimming races, including triathlon swimming segment races in Brazil from 2009 to 2019. The average was 1.1 deaths per year, whereas in the last 3 years (2017-2019) the average was 3 deaths per year. The male participants accounted for 11 deaths (91.7%), the average age was 47 years old, experienced athletes were more affected (80%), and incidents occurred mainly in ocean waters (75%). The increase of deaths in the last 3 years draws attention, and the best way to reduce the deaths by drowning in open waters in Brazil, is to understand the profile and causes, to propose solutions.

Phase One of a Global Evaluation of Suction-Based Airway Clearance Devices in Foreign Body Airway Obstructions: A Retrospective Descriptive Analysis.

Background: Choking is a prevalent source of injury and mortality worldwide. Traditional choking interventions, including abdominal thrusts and back blows, have remained the standard of care for decades despite limited published data. Suction-based airway clearance devices (ACDs) are becoming increasingly popular and there is an urgent need to evaluate their role in choking intervention. The aim of this study was to describe the effectiveness (i.e., resolution of choking symptoms) and safety (i.e., adverse events) of identified airway clearance devices interventions to date. Methods: This retrospective descriptive analysis included any individual who self-identified to manufacturers as having used an ACD as a choking intervention prior to 1 July 2021. Records were included if they contained three clinical variables (patient's age, type of foreign body, and resolution of choking symptoms). Researchers performed data extraction using a standardized form which included patient, situational, and outcome variables. Results: The analysis included 124 non-invasive (LifeVac©) and 61 minimally invasive (Dechoker©) ACD interventions. Median patient age was 40 (LifeVac©, 2−80) and 73 (Dechoker©, 5−84) with extremes of age being most common [<5 years: LifeVac© 37.1%, Dechoker© 23.0%; 80+ years: 27.4%, 37.7%]. Food was the most frequent foreign body (LifeVac© 84.7%, Dechoker© 91.8%). Abdominal thrusts (LifeVac© 37.9%, Dechoker© 31.1%) and back blows (LifeVac© 39.5%, Dechoker© 41.0%) were often co-interventions. Resolution of choking symptoms occurred following use of the ACD in 123 (LifeVac©) and 60 (Dechoker©) cases. Three adverse events (1.6%) were reported: disconnection of bellows/mask during intervention (LifeVac©), a lip laceration (Dechoker©), and an avulsed tooth (Dechoker©). Conclusion: Initial available data has shown ACDs to be promising in the treatment of choking. However, limitations in data collection methods and quality exist. The second phase of this evaluation will be an industry independent, prospective assessment in order to improve data quality, and inform future choking intervention algorithms.

Drowning and aquatic injuries dictionary.

BACKGROUND: Drowning is a significant public health issue with more than 320,000 deaths globally every year. These numbers are greatly underestimated, however, due to factors such as inadequate data collection, inconsistent categorization and failure to report in certain regions and cultures.The objective of this study was to develop a standardised drowning dictionary using a consensus-based approach. Through creation of this resource, improved clarity amongst stakeholders will be achieved and, as a result, so will our understanding of the drowning issue. METHODOLOGY: A list of terms and their definitions were created and sent to 16 drowning experts with a broad range of backgrounds across four continents and six languages. A review was conducted using a modified Delphi process over five rounds. A sixth round was done by an external panel evaluating the terms' content validity. RESULTS: The drowning dictionary included more than 350 terms. Of these, less than 10% had been previously published in peer review literature. On average, the external expert validity endorsing the dictionary shows a Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.91, exceeding the scientific recommended value. Ninety one percent of the items present an I-CVI (Level Content Validity Index) value considered acceptable (>0.78). The endorsement was not a universal agreement (S-CVI/UA: 0.44). CONCLUSION: The drowning dictionary provides a common language, and the authors envisage that its use will facilitate collaboration and comparison across prevention sectors, education, research, policy and treatment. The dictionary will be open to readers for discussion and further review at www.idra.world.

Management for the Drowning Patient.

Drowning is "the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion or immersion in liquid." According to the World Health Organization, drowning claims the lives of > 40 people every hour of every day. Drowning involves some physiological principles and medical interventions that are unique. It occurs in a deceptively hostile environment that involves an underestimation of the dangers or an overestimation of water competency. It has been estimated that > 90% of drownings are preventable. When water is aspirated into the airways, coughing is the initial reflex response. The acute lung injury alters the exchange of oxygen in different proportions. The combined effects of fluid in the lungs, loss of surfactant, and increased capillary-alveolar permeability result in decreased lung compliance, increased right-to-left shunting in the lungs, atelectasis, and alveolitis, a noncardiogenic pulmonary edema. Salt and fresh water aspirations cause similar pathology. If the person is not rescued, aspiration continues, and hypoxemia leads to loss of consciousness and apnea in seconds to minutes. As a consequence, hypoxic cardiac arrest occurs. The decision to admit to an ICU should consider the patient's drowning severity and comorbid or premorbid conditions. Ventilation therapy should achieve an intrapulmonary shunt ≤ 20% or Pao2:Fio2 ≥ 250. Premature ventilatory weaning may cause the return of pulmonary edema with the need for re-intubation and an anticipation of prolonged hospital stays and further morbidity. This review includes all the essential steps from the first call to action until the best practice at the prehospital, ED, and hospitalization.

Need for consistent beach lifeguard data collection: results from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Lifeguards are integral to beach safety and collect data which is used for a variety of purposes, although guidelines and best practice have yet to be established. This study served to identify and characterise existing beach lifeguard service provider (BLSP) data collection procedures in order to identify the degree of uniformity and areas for improvement. METHODS: The 'International Beach Lifeguard Data Collection and Reporting' online survey was distributed via the International Drowning Researchers' Alliance to BLSP supervisors and managers. The survey included questions on beach conditions and lifeguard activity data collection practices, and respondent's opinions on their own BLSP's methods. RESULTS: Variability in data collection practices was evident in surveys obtained from 55 lifeguard leaders in 12 countries. Discrepancies exist in definitions for 'rescue' among BLSPs, a significant amount of information related to beach conditions are recorded and beach visitation is primarily obtained by visual estimate. Respondents expressed challenges with getting frontline staff to collect information in the field and ensuring reporting consistency between recorders. They identified rescue victim demographic factors as key data they would like to collect in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies in lifeguard data collection present challenges to operations, safety education and prevention efforts, research and policy relying on these data. Variation in definitions, methods and collected variables generally restricts analysis to a single BLSP with limited generalisability to other beach settings. Some gaps in lifeguard data collection may soon be addressed by technology, but developing uniform, internationally acceptable standards and definitions should be prioritised.

Plastic blanket drowning kit: A protection barrier to immediate resuscitation at the beach in the Covid-19 era. A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Introducing a new, simple and inexpensive portable equipment for lifeguards, consisting of a pre-assembled full-size plastic blanket with a mask and HEPA filter, which could offer significant time-saving advantages to reduce COVID-19 risk transmission in the first few minutes of CPR after water rescue, avoiding the negative impact of delayed ventilation. METHOD: A pilot study was carried out to determine the feasibility of the pre-assembled kit of face-mask and HEPA filter adapted on a pre-set plastic-blanket. The first step consisted of washing hands, putting on safety glasses and gloves as the first personal protection equipment (PPE) and then covering the victim with an assembled plastic blanket. The second step consisted of 10 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with PPE and plastic blanket, following the technical recommendations for ventilation during COVID-19. RESULTS: Ten rescuers took part in the pilot study. The average time to wear PPE and place the pre-assembly kit on the victim was 82 s [IC 58-105]. After 10 min the quality of the resuscitation (QCPR) was 91% [87-94]. Quality chest compressions (CC) were 22% better than ventilations (V). Most of the rescuers (60%) thought that placing the plastic blanket on the victim on the beach was somewhat simple or very simple. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation techniques in COVID-19 era at the beach have added complexities for the correct use of PPE. Plastic blanket plus basic ventilations equipment resource could be a new alternative to be considered for lifeguards to keep ventilation on use while reducing risk transmission.

[Occupational health recommendations for lifeguards in aquatic emergencies in the Covid-19 era: prevention, rescue and resuscitation.] / Recomendaciones de salud laboral para socorristas ante emergencias acuáticas en la era Covid-19: prevención, rescate y reanimación.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), is highly contagious. Lifeguards are the first line of response in aquatic emergencies and they will suffer a strong exposure to risk this first summer of the Covid-19 era, so their occupational health must be rethought in their professional practice during the new normal. The main public health measure to prevent drowning is prevention, but when this fails and assistance or rescue is required, in most interventions, distancing will not be possible. The limitation of personal protective equipment (PPE) for rescue is a reality that must be known and that can affect the health of the lifeguard. A review of the current literature aimed at avoiding or minimizing the risk of contagion in the interventions carried out by rescuers in the Covid-19 era was performed. This article provides structured information on the prevention of contagion in lifeguards, the potential risks, the available PPE, and the recommendations for its proper use during rescue or prehospital care in aquatic settings.

El síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), que causa la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19), es altamente contagioso. Los socorristas son la primera línea de respuesta en las emergencias acuáticas y van a sufrir una fuerte exposición al riesgo este primer verano de la era Covid-19, por lo que su salud laboral debe ser replanteada en su práctica profesional durante la nueva normalidad. La principal medida de salud pública para evitar ahogamientos es la prevención, pero cuando esta falla y se requiere la asistencia o el rescate, en la mayor parte de las intervenciones el distanciamiento no será posible. La limitación de los equipos de protección personal (EPI) para el rescate es una realidad que debe conocerse y que puede afectar a la salud del socorrista. Se realizó una revisión de la literatura actual orientada a evitar o minimizar el riesgo de contagio en las intervenciones realizadas por rescatadores en la era Covid-19. Este artículo ofrece una información estructurada sobre la prevención del contagio en los socorristas, los riesgos potenciales, los EPI disponibles y las recomendaciones para su adecuado uso durante los rescates o la atención prehospitalaria en los entornos acuáticos.

Recomendaciones de salud laboral para socorristas ante emergencias acuáticas en la era Covid-19: prevención, rescate y reanimación / Occupational health recommendations for lifeguards in aquatic emergencies in the Covid-19 era: prevention, rescue and resuscitation

El síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), que causa la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19), es altamente contagioso. Los socorristas son la primera línea de respuesta en las emergencias acuáticas y van a sufrir una fuerte exposición al riesgo este primer verano de la era Covid-19, por lo que su salud laboral debe ser replanteada en su práctica profesional durante la nueva normalidad. La principal medida de salud pública para evitar ahogamientos es la prevención, pero cuando esta falla y se requiere la asistencia o el rescate, en la mayor parte de las intervenciones el distanciamiento no será posible. La limitación de los equipos de protección personal (EPI) para el rescate es una realidad que debe conocerse y que puede afectar a la salud del socorrista. Se realizó una revisión de la literatura actual orientada a evitar o minimizar el riesgo de contagio en las intervenciones realizadas por rescatadores en la era Covid-19. Este artículo ofrece una información estructurada sobre la prevención del contagio en los socorristas, los riesgos potenciales, los EPI disponibles y las recomendaciones para su adecuado uso durante los rescates o la atención prehospitalaria en los entornos acuáticos

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), is highly contagious. Lifeguards are the first line of response in aquatic emergencies and they will suffer a strong exposure to risk this first summer of the Covid-19 era, so their occupational health must be rethought in their professional practice during the new normal. The main public health measure to prevent drowning is prevention, but when this fails and assistance or rescue is required, in most interventions, distancing will not be possible. The limitation of personal protective equipment (PPE) for rescue is a reality that must be known and that can affect the health of the lifeguard. A review of the current literature aimed at avoiding or minimizing the risk of contagion in the interventions carried out by rescuers in the Covid-19 era was performed. This article provides structured information on the prevention of contagion in lifeguards, the potential risks, the available PPE, and the recommendations for its proper use during rescue or prehospital care in aquatic settings

'Dry drowning' and other myths.

Drowning is a common and often preventable cause of death, especially in children. The mass media often propagate misinformation about "dry" and "secondary" drowning, diverting attention from appropriate efforts to prevent drowning and rescue and treat those who do drown.

Is drowning a mere matter of resuscitation?

International data severely underestimates actual drowning numbers. Almost all victims are able to help themselves or are rescued in time. This study aims to report the occurrence of Drowning Chain of Survival actions and resuscitations needed in a fully operational lifeguard service. METHODOLOGY: Data was collected from Dec-2009 to Mar-2015 by lifeguards at a 6km-long beach in Brazil. The Drowning Chain of Survival links were summarized into 3 main action-response sections: Prevention; rescue; and provide care. Rescues were classified by severity. RESULTS: Lifeguards reported 1,565,699 actions during the study period. Preventative actions comprised 1,563,300(99.8%) and 2044 (0.1%) involved recognizing a person in stress/distress and rescuing them. Of those requiring rescue, 355(0.02%) needed medical assistance due to respiratory symptoms, isolated respiratory arrest, or cardiopulmonary arrest. Those cases were classified by severity as: Grade 1 = 234(65.9%), grade 2 = 78(22%), grade 3 = 22(6.2%), grade 4 = 7(2%), grade 5 = 4(1.1%), and Grade 6 = 10(2.8%). From all 2044 rescues, 14(0.7%) were grade 5 and 6 and needed respiratory or cardiorespiratory resuscitation. An estimative incident rate for each day at a lifeguarded beach revealed: 1 rescue for every 4.227 beach attendances, 1 drowning for every 24,338 beach attendances, and 1 instance of CPR being performed for every 617,142 beach attendances. The prevalent misconception that majority of drowning require resuscitation is perpetuated by the media and publishers. We are only just seeing the tip of the iceberg and urgently need to look at the problem in its entirety. Considering all the intervention undertaken by lifeguards in a fully operational system, the incidence of resuscitation being performed is only one in every 112,000 lifeguarding actions (0.0009%).

Comment on Cerland, L. et al. Incidence and Consequences of Near-Drowning-Related Pneumonia-A Descriptive Series from Martinique, French West Indies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1402.

We read with great interest the recent paper by Cerland et al. on the frequency, nature, and consequences of post-drowning pneumonia[...].

Anaphylactic reaction/angioedema associated with jellyfish sting.

The most frequent jellyfish in Southern Brazil causes mainly local pain and skin plaques. A 3-year-old female bather presented an erythematous, irregular plaque on the left forearm after contact with a jellyfish and intense facial angioedema with facial flushing. The lungs had vesicular murmur, wheezes, and snorts, and pink and spumous secretion in the airways with intercostal retraction. She was administered subcutaneous adrenaline (0.1mg/kg) and hydrocortisone intravenous (10mg/kg) with total recovery in a few minutes. The manifestations of anaphylactic reactions are distinct from those of envenomations, and prompt and adequate care is fundamental in these situations.

Anaphylactic reaction/angioedema associated with jellyfish sting

Abstract The most frequent jellyfish in Southern Brazil causes mainly local pain and skin plaques. A 3-year-old female bather presented an erythematous, irregular plaque on the left forearm after contact with a jellyfish and intense facial angioedema with facial flushing. The lungs had vesicular murmur, wheezes, and snorts, and pink and spumous secretion in the airways with intercostal retraction. She was administered subcutaneous adrenaline (0.1mg/kg) and hydrocortisone intravenous (10mg/kg) with total recovery in a few minutes. The manifestations of anaphylactic reactions are distinct from those of envenomations, and prompt and adequate care is fundamental in these situations.