Assessing the efficacy of rescue equipment in lifeguard resuscitation efforts for drowning

Barcala-Furelos, Roberto; Szpilman, David; Palacios-Aguilar, José; Costas-Veiga, Javier; Abelairas‐Gómez, Cristian; Bores-Cerezal, Antonio; García, Sergio López; Rodrı́guez-Núñez, Antonio

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.12.006

Cited by 35 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is of particular importance given that none of the 53 bystander drowning deaths that occurred in Australia between 2004 and 2017 used a flotation device (SLSA 2018, personnel communication). This finding also supports those of [26], who identified the overwhelming assistance of lifelines, of some sort, in making successful rescues, and of [35] who found that the use of flotation devices saves time involved in rescue with positive repercussions in the reduction of drowning mortality and morbidity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Characteristics of aquatic rescues undertaken by bystanders in Australia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An issue of growing importance within the field of drowning prevention is the undertaking of aquatic rescues by bystanders, who sometimes drown in the process. The main objectives of this study were to describe characteristics of bystanders making rescues in different Australian aquatic environments, identify the role of prior water safety training in conducting bystander rescues and provide insights into future public education strategies relating to bystander rescue scenarios. An online survey was disseminated via various social media platforms in 2017 and gathered a total of 243 complete responses. The majority of bystander rescues described took place in coastal waterways (76.5%; n = 186), particularly beaches (n = 67), followed by pools (17.3%; n = 42) and inland waterways (6.2%; n = 15). The majority of respondents were males (64.2%; n = 156) who rescued on average approximately twice as many people in their lifetime (6.5) than female respondents (3.6). Most rescues occurred more than 1 km from lifeguard/lifesaver services (67%; n = 163), but in the presence of others (94.2%; n = 229). The majority of bystander rescuers had water safety training (65.8%; n = 160), self-rated as strong swimmers (68.3%; n = 166), conducted the rescue without help from others (60%; n = 146), did not use a flotation device to assist (63%; n = 153), but were confident in their ability to make the rescue (76.5%; n = 186). However, most considered the situation to be very serious (58%; n = 141) and felt they had saved a life (70.1%; n = 172). With the exception of pools, most bystanders rescued strangers (76.1%; n = 185).While Australia clearly benefits from having a strong water safety culture, there is no clear consensus on the most appropriate actions bystanders should take when confronted with a potential aquatic rescue scenario. In particular, more research is needed to gather information regarding bystander rescues undertaken by those without prior water safety training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Characteristics of aquatic rescues undertaken by bystanders in Australia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lifeguards in this study reached a mean lactate level of over 10 mmol•L −1 after 200 m rescue with fins, which is in close agreement with the results of previous studies of water rescues of 150-200 m [4,5]. The results of this study showed a moderate recovery effect on lactate concentration after water rescue for the ES group compared with a PR group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…According to present results, it appears that ES at 5 Hz and 0.25 milliseconds at painless motor amplitude could be an efficient strategy for lactate washout after water rescue. Thus, given the importance of lifeguards' lactate concentration in rescue performance [5,35], the results of the present study have important practical implications and are useful for clarifying the most appropriate ES parameters for post-exercise short-term recovery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The water rescue consisted of swimming 100 m with fins to the victim, gaining control of the conscious non-collaborative victim, and towing the victim 100 m back to shore using a common rescue tube (Size: 50″ × 6″ × 4″). This distance has been used in other investigations with lifeguards [5,22]. The participating victims (height: 160-190 cm, weight: 60-90 kg) were instructed to simulate a conscious person without collaboration.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drowning is a global health problem, which in 2017 caused 295,210 drowning deaths [2], a number that would be much higher without lifeguard prevention and rescues. Drowning is triggered, within seconds or minutes [3], so the intensity of lifeguards' water rescues is very high, with lactate production of over 10 millimoles [4,5] and great physiological and muscular fatigue [6]. Considering a lifeguard can have more than one rescue per day [7], the physiological and metabolic disturbances induced by a water rescue can have detrimental effects on the performance of subsequent rescues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Low-Frequency Electrical Stimulation a Tool for Recovery after a Water Rescue? A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards

Barcala-Furelos

González-Represas

Rey

et al. 2020

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the degree to which transcutaneous electrical stimulation (ES) enhanced recovery following a simulated water rescue. Twenty-six lifeguards participated in this study. The rescue consisted of swimming 100 m with fins and rescue-tube: 50 m swim approach and 50 m tow-in a simulated victim. Blood lactate clearance, rated perceived effort (RPE), and muscle contractile properties were evaluated at baseline, after the water rescue, and after ES or passive-recovery control condition (PR) protocol. Tensiomiography, RPE, and blood lactate basal levels indicated equivalence between both groups. There was no change in tensiomiography from pre to post-recovery and no difference between recovery protocols. Overall-RPE, legs-RPE and arms-RPE after ES (mean ± SD; 2.7 ± 1.53, 2.65 ± 1.66, and 2.30 ± 1.84, respectively) were moderately lower than after PR (3.57 ± 2.4, 3.71 ± 2.43, and 3.29 ± 1.79, respectively) (p = 0.016, p = 0.010, p = 0.028, respectively). There was a significantly lower blood lactate level after recovery in ES than in PR (mean ± SD; 4.77 ± 1.86 mmol·L−1 vs. 6.27 ± 3.69 mmol·L−1; p = 0.045). Low-frequency ES immediately after a water rescue is an effective recovery strategy to clear out blood lactate concentration.

show abstract