Effectiveness and safety of in-water resuscitation performed by lifeguards and laypersons: a crossover manikin study.

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.

Efficacy of ventilation and ventilation adjuncts during in-water-resuscitation--a randomized cross-over trial.

INTRODUCTION: Drowning is a common cause of death in young adults. The 2010 guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council call for in-water-resuscitation (IWR). There has been controversy about IWR amongst emergency and diving physicians for decades. The aim of the present study was assessing the efficacy of IWR. METHODS: In this randomized cross-over trial, nineteen lifeguards performed a rescue manoeuvre over a 100 m distance in open water. All subjects performed the procedure four times in random order: with no ventilation (NV) and transportation only, mouth-to-mouth ventilation (MMV), bag-mask-ventilation (BMV) and laryngeal tube ventilation (LTV). Tidal volumes, ventilation rate and minute-volumes were recorded using a modified Laerdal Resusci Anne manikin. Furthermore, water aspiration and number of submersions of the test mannequin were assessed, as well as the physical effort of the lifeguard rescuers.One lifeguard subject did not complete MMV due to exhaustion and was excluded from analysis. RESULTS: NV was the fastest rescue manoeuvre (advantage ∼40s). MMV and LTV were evaluated as efficient and relatively easy to perform by the lifeguards. While MMV (mean 199 ml) and BMV (mean 481 ml) were associated with a large amount of aspirated water, aspiration was significantly lower in LTV (mean 118 ml). The efficacy of ventilation was consistently good in LTV (Vt=447 ml), continuously poor in BMV (Vt=197) and declined substantially during MMV (Vt=1,019 ml initially and Vt=786 ml at the end). The physical effort of the lifeguards was remarkably higher when performing IWR: 3.7 in NV, 6.7 in MMV, 6.4 in BMV and 4.8 in LTV as measured on the 0-10 visual analogue scale. CONCLUSION: IWR in open water is time consuming and physically demanding. The IWR training of lifeguards should put more emphasis on a reduction of aspiration. The use of ventilation adjuncts like the laryngeal tube might ease IWR, reduce aspiration of water and increase the efficacy of ventilation during IWR.