In flight auscultation: comparison of electronic and conventional stethoscopes.

OBJECTIVES: The ability to auscultate during air medical transport is compromised by high ambient noise levels. The aim of this study was to assess the capabilities of a traditional and an amplified stethoscope (which is expected to reduce background and ambient noise) to assess heart and breath sounds during medical transport in a Falcon 50 plane. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized study was performed. We tested 1 model of traditional stethoscope (Littman cardiology III) and 1 model of amplified stethoscope (Littman 3100). We studied heart and lung auscultation during real medical evacuations aboard Falcon 50 (medically configured). For each, the quality of auscultation was described using a numeric rating scale (ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 corresponding to "I hear nothing" and 10 corresponding to "I hear perfectly"). Comparisons were accomplished using a t test for paired values. RESULTS: A total of 32 comparative evaluations were performed. For cardiac auscultation, the value of the rating scale was 5.8 ± 1.5 and 6.4 ± 1.9, respectively, for the traditional and amplified stethoscope (P = .018). For lung sounds, quality of auscultation was estimated at 3.3 ± 2.4 for traditional stethoscope and at 3.7 ± 2.9 for amplified stethoscope (P = .15). CONCLUSIONS: Practicians in Falcon 50 are more able to hear cardiac sounds with an amplified than with a traditional stethoscope, whereas there is no significant difference concerning breath sounds auscultation.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome: performance of ventilator at simulated altitude.

BACKGROUND: Ventilation of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a challenge, and there is definitely a need for lack of variations between delivered and set tidal volume (Vt). We have assessed the ability of the ventilator T-birdVS02 and LTV-1000 to deliver to a lung model with ARDS a set Vt at different simulated altitudes. METHODS: We used a decompression chamber to mimic the hypobaric environment at a range of simulated cabin altitudes of 1,500, 2,500, and 3,000 m (4,000, 6,670, and 8,000 feet, respectively). Ventilators were tested with realistic parameters. Vt was set at 400 mL and 250 mL in an ARDS lung model. Comparisons of preset to actual measured values were accomplished using a t test for each altitude. RESULTS: The T-birdVS02 showed a decrease in the volume delivered. Comparisons of actual delivered Vt and set Vt demonstrated a significant difference starting at 1,500 m for a Vt set of 400 mL and at 2,500 m for Vt set of 250 mL. At these altitudes, the variations between Vt set and delivered were more than 10%. With decreasing barometric pressure, the LTV-1000 showed mostly an increase in volume delivered. Comparisons of actual delivered Vt and set Vt demonstrated a significant difference at 2,500 m for a Vt set of 400 mL and at 3,000 m for Vt set of 250 mL. The delivered Vt remained within 10% of the set Vt. CONCLUSION: Clinicians involved in aerial evacuations must keep in mind the performance and limitations of their ventilator system.