Aim: Prior studies suggest that the use of personal protective equipment might impair the quality of critical care. We investigated the influence of personal protective equipment on out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods: Randomised controlled non-inferiority triple-crossover study. Forty-eight emergency medical service providers, randomized into teams of two, performed 12 min of basic life support (BLS) on a manikin after climbing 3 flights of stairs. Three scenarios were completed in a randomised order: Without personal protective equipment, with personal protective equipment including a filtering face piece (FFP) 2 mask with valve, and with personal protective equipment including an FFP2 mask without valve. The primary outcome was mean depth of chest compressions with a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 3.5 mm. Secondary outcomes included other measurements of CPR quality, providers' subjective exhaustion levels, and providers' vital signs, including end-tidal CO 2. Results: Differences regarding the primary outcome were well below the pre-defined non-inferiority margins for both control vs. personal protective equipment without valve (absolute difference 1 mm, 95% CI [À1, 2]) and control vs. personal protective equipment with valve (absolute difference 1 mm, [À0.2, 2]). This was also true for secondary outcomes regarding quality of chest compressions and providers' vital signs including etCO 2. Subjective physical strain after BLS was higher in the personal protective equipment groups (Borg 4 (SD 3) without valve, 4 (SD 2) with valve) than in the control group (Borg 3 (SD 2)). Conclusion: PPE including masks with and without expiration valve is safe for use without concerns regarding the impairment of CPR quality.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread use of personal protection equipment (PPE), including filtering face piece (FFP) masks, throughout the world. PPE. Previous studies indicate that PPE impairs neurocognitive performance in healthcare workers. Concerns for personnel safety have led to special recommendations regarding basic life support (BLS) in patients with a potential SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the use of PPE. Established instruments are available to assess attention and dexterity in BLS settings, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the influence of PPE with different types of FFP masks on these two neuropsychological components of EMS personnel during BLS. Methods This was a randomized controlled non-inferiority triple-crossover study. Teams of paramedics completed three 12-min long BLS scenarios on a manikin after having climbed three flights of stairs with equipment, each in three experimental conditions: (a) without pandemic PPE, (b) with PPE including a FFP2 mask with an expiration valve and (c) with PPE including an FFP2 mask without an expiration valve. The teams and intervention sequences were randomized. We measured the shift in concentration performance using the d2 test and dexterity using the nine-hole peg test (NHPT). We compared results between the three conditions. For the primary outcome, the non-inferiority margin was set at 20 points. Results Forty-eight paramedics participated. Concentration performance was significantly better after each scenario, with no differences noted between groups: d2 shift control versus with valve − 8.3 (95% CI − 19.4 to 2.7) points; control versus without valve − 8.5 (− 19.7 to 2.7) points; with valve versus without valve 0.1 (− 11.1 to 11.3) points. Similar results were found for the NHPT: + 0.3 (− 0.7 to 1.4), − 0.4 (− 1.4 to 0.7), 0.7 (− 0.4 to 1.8) s respectively. Conclusion Attention increases when performing BLS. Attention and dexterity are not inferior when wearing PPE, including FFP2 masks. PPE should be used on a low-threshold basis.

Background: High quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a key factor in survival with good overall quality of life after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Current evidence is predominantly based on studies conducted at low altitude, and do not take into account the special circumstances of alpine rescue missions. We therefore aimed to investigate the influence of physical strain at high altitude on the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods: Alpine field study. Twenty experienced mountaineers of the Austrian Mountain Rescue Service trained in Basic Life Support (BLS) performed BLS on a manikin in groups of two for 16 min. The scenario was executed at baseline altitude and immediately after a quick ascent over an altitude difference of 1200 m at 3454 m above sea level. The sequence of scenarios was randomised for a cross over analysis. Quality of CPR and exhaustion of participants (vital signs, Borg-Scale, Nine hole peg test) were measured and compared between high altitude and baseline using random-effects linear regression models. Results: The primary outcome of chest compression depth significantly decreased at high altitude compared to baseline by 1 cm (95% CI 0.5 to 1.3 cm, p < 0.01). There was a significant reduction in the proportion of chest compressions in the target depth (at least 5 cm pressure depth) by 55% (95% CI 29 to 82%, p < 0.01) and in the duration of the release phase by 75 ms (95% CI 48 to 101 ms, p < 0.01). No significant difference was found regarding hands-off times, compression frequency or exhaustion. Conclusion: Physical strain during a realistic alpine rescue mission scenario at high altitude led to a significant reduction in quality of resuscitation. Resuscitation guidelines developed at sea level are not directly applicable in the mountain terrain.

Background Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in mountain environment is challenging. Continuous chest compressions during transport or hoist rescue are almost impossible without mechanical chest compression devices. Current evidence is predominantly based on studies conducted by urbane ambulance service. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the feasibility of continuous mechanical chest compression during alpine terrestrial transport using three different devices. Methods Randomized triple crossover prospective study in an alpine environment. Nineteen teams of the Austrian Mountain Rescue Service trained according to current ERC guidelines performed three runs each of a standardised alpine rescue-scenario, using three different devices for mechanical chest compression. Quality of CPR, hands-off-time and displacement of devices were measured. Results The primary outcome of performed work (defined as number of chest compressions x compression depth) was 66,062 mm (2832) with Corpuls CPR, 65,877 mm (6163) with Physio-Control LUCAS 3 and 40,177 mm (4396) with Schiller Easy Pulse. The difference both between LUCAS 3 and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,700; 95% confidence interval 21,118 – 30,282) and between Corpuls CPR and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,885; 23,590 – 28,181) was significant. No relevant differences were found regarding secondary outcomes. Conclusion Mechanical chest compression devices provide a viable option in the alpine setting. For two out of three devices (Corpuls CPR and LUCAS 3) we found adequate quality of CPR. Those devices also maintained a correct placement of the piston even during challenging terrestrial transport. Adequate hands-off-times and correct placement could be achieved even by less trained personnel.

No abstract