Citation

Winkler BE, Eff AM, Ehrmann U, Eff S, Koch A, Kaehler W, Georgieff M, Muth CM. Prehosp. Emerg. Care 2013; 17(3): 409-415.

Affiliation

From the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine II, Heart Center Leipzig , University of Leipzig , Germany (BEW) ; and the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine II, Heart Center Leipzig , University of Leipzig , Germany .

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, National Association of EMS Physicians, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.3109/10903127.2013.792892

PMID

23734993

Abstract

Objective. Drowning is associated with a high mortality and morbidity and a common cause of death. In-water resuscitation (IWR) in the case of drowning accidents has been recommended by certain resuscitation guidelines in the last several years. IWR has been discussed controversially in the past, especially with regard to the delay of chest compressions, effectiveness of ventilation, and hazard to the rescuer. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of IWR. Methods. In this crossover manikin study, 21 lifeguards and 21 laypersons performed two rescue procedures in an indoor swimming pool over a 50-meter distance: In random order, one rescue procedure was performed with in-water ventilation and one without. Tidal and minute volumes were recorded using a modified Laerdal Resusci Anne (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) and total rescue duration, submersions, water aspiration by the victim, and physical effort were assessed. Results. IWR resulted in significant increases in rescue duration (lifeguards: 106 vs. 82 seconds; laypersons: 133 vs. 106 seconds) and submersions (lifeguards: 3 vs. 1; laypersons: 5 vs. 0). Furthermore, water aspiration (lifeguards: 112 vs. 29 mL; laypersons: 160 vs. 56 mL) and physical effort (lifeguards: visual analog scale [VAS] score 7 vs. 5; laypersons: VAS score 8 vs. 6) increased significantly when IWR was performed. Lifeguards achieved significantly better ventilation characteristics and performed both rescue procedures faster and with lower side effects. IWR performed by laypersons was insufficient with regard to both tidal and minute volumes. Conclusions. In-water resuscitation is associated with a delay of the rescue procedure and a relevant aspiration of water by the victim. IWR appears to be possible when performed over a short distance by well-trained professionals. The training of lifeguards must place particular emphasis on a reduction of submersions and aspiration when IWR is performed. IWR by laypersons is exhausting, time-consuming, and inefficient and should probably not be recommended. Key words: drowning; near-drowning; hypoxia; ventilation, artificial; respiration, artificial; resuscitation, in-water.

Language: en