Randomized Comparison of Two New Methods for Chest Compressions during CPR in Microgravity-A Manikin Study

Jan Schmitz, Anton Ahlbäck, James DuCanto, Steffen Kerkhoff, Matthieu Komorowski, Vanessa Löw, Thais Russomano, Clement Starck, Seamus Thierry, Tobias Warnecke, Jochen Hinkelbein, Jan Schmitz, Anton Ahlbäck, James DuCanto, Steffen Kerkhoff, Matthieu Komorowski, Vanessa Löw, Thais Russomano, Clement Starck, Seamus Thierry, Tobias Warnecke, Jochen Hinkelbein

Abstract

Background: Although there have been no reported cardiac arrests in space to date, the risk of severe medical events occurring during long-duration spaceflights is a major concern. These critical events can endanger both the crew as well as the mission and include cardiac arrest, which would require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Thus far, five methods to perform CPR in microgravity have been proposed. However, each method seems insufficient to some extent and not applicable at all locations in a spacecraft. The aim of the present study is to describe and gather data for two new CPR methods in microgravity.

Materials and methods: A randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared two new methods for CPR in a free-floating underwater setting. Paramedics performed chest compressions on a manikin (Ambu Man, Ambu, Germany) using two new methods for a free-floating position in a parallel-group design. The first method (Schmitz-Hinkelbein method) is similar to conventional CPR on earth, with the patient in a supine position lying on the operator's knees for stabilization. The second method (Cologne method) is similar to the first, but chest compressions are conducted with one elbow while the other hand stabilizes the head. The main outcome parameters included the total number of chest compressions (n) during 1 min of CPR (compression rate), the rate of correct chest compressions (%), and no-flow time (s). The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04354883).

Results: Fifteen volunteers (age 31.0 ± 8.8 years, height 180.3 ± 7.5 cm, and weight 84.1 ± 13.2 kg) participated in this study. Compared to the Cologne method, the Schmitz-Hinkelbein method showed superiority in compression rates (100.5 ± 14.4 compressions/min), correct compression depth (65 ± 23%), and overall high rates of correct thoracic release after compression (66% high, 20% moderate, and 13% low). The Cologne method showed correct depth rates (28 ± 27%) but was associated with a lower mean compression rate (73.9 ± 25.5/min) and with lower rates of correct thoracic release (20% high, 7% moderate, and 73% low).

Conclusions: Both methods are feasible without any equipment and could enable immediate CPR during cardiac arrest in microgravity, even in a single-helper scenario. The Schmitz-Hinkelbein method appears superior and could allow the delivery of high-quality CPR immediately after cardiac arrest with sufficient quality.

Keywords: CPR; microgravity; resuscitation; spaceflight; submerged model.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Graphic example (a) and execution in our submerged setting (b) of the Schmitz–Hinkelbein method (Graphic: Medizinfoto Köln, Photo: Jan Schmitz).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Graphic example (a) and execution in our submerged setting (b) of the Cologne method (Graphic: Medizinfoto Köln, Photo: Jan Schmitz).
Figure 3
Figure 3
CONSORT flow diagram. SHM: Schmitz–Hinkelbein method; CM: Cologne method.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Submerged setting with manikin in free-floating position (Photo: J. Schmitz).

References

    1. Witze A. Can NASA really return people to the Moon by 2024? Nat. Cell Biol. 2019;571:153–154. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02020-w.
    1. Hinkelbein J., Spelten O. Going beyond anesthesia in space exploration missions: Emergency medicine and emergency medical care. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2013;84:747. doi: 10.3357/ASEM.3708.2013.
    1. Nicogossian A. Medicine and space exploration. Lancet. 2003;362:s8–s9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15055-6.
    1. Komorowski M., Fleming S., Mawkin M., Hinkelbein J. Anaesthesia in austere environments: Literature review and considerations for future space exploration missions. NPJ Microgravity. 2018;4:5. doi: 10.1038/s41526-018-0039-y.
    1. Nicogossian A.E., Pober D.F., Roy S.A. Evolution of Telemedicine in the Space Program and Earth Applications. Telemed. e-Health. 2001;7:1–15. doi: 10.1089/153056201300093813.
    1. Hinkelbein J. Spaceflight: The final frontier for airway management? Br. J. Anaesth. 2020;125:e5–e6. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.12.002.
    1. Tanaka K., Nishimura N., Kawai Y. Adaptation to microgravity, deconditioning, and countermeasures. J. Physiol. Sci. 2017;67:271–281. doi: 10.1007/s12576-016-0514-8.
    1. Shen M., Frishman W.H. Effects of Spaceflight on Cardiovascular Physiology and Health. Cardiol. Rev. 2019;27:122–126. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000236.
    1. Hughson R.L., Helm A., Durante M. Heart in space: Effect of the extraterrestrial environment on the cardio-vascular system. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2018;15:167–180. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.157.
    1. Roberts D., Brown T., Nietert P., Eckert M., Inglesby D., Bloomberg J., George M., Asemani D. Prolonged Microgravity Affects Human Brain Structure and Function. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2019;40:1878–1885. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6249.
    1. Russomano T., Da Rosa M., A Dos Santos M. Space motion sickness: A common neurovestibular dysfunction in microgravity. Neurol. India. 2019;67:S214–S218. doi: 10.4103/0028-3886.259127.
    1. Swaffield T.P., Neviaser A.S., Lehnhardt K. Fracture Risk in Spaceflight and Potential Treatment Options. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 2018;89:1060–1067. doi: 10.3357/AMHP.5007.2018.
    1. Summers R.L., Johnston S.L., Marshburn T.H., Williams D.R. Emergencies in space. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2005;46:177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.02.010.
    1. Lott C., Truhlář A., Alfonzo A., Barelli A., González-Salvado V., Hinkelbein J., Nolan J.P., Paal P., Perkins G.D., Thies K.-C., et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Cardiac arrest in special circumstances. Resuscitation. 2021;161:152–219. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.011.
    1. Hinkelbein J., Kerkhoff S., Adler C., Ahlbäck A., Braunecker S., Burgard D., Cirillo F., De Robertis E., Glaser E., Haidl T.K., et al. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during spaceflight—A guideline for CPR in microgravity from the German Society of Aerospace Medicine (DGLRM) and the European Society of Aerospace Medicine Space Medicine Group (ESAM-SMG) Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2020;28:108. doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00793-y.
    1. Forti A., van Veelen M.J., Squizzato T., Cappello T.D., Palma M., Strapazzon G. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in microgravity and hypergravity conditions: A manikin study during parabolic flight. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021;53:54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.12.056.
    1. Braunecker S., Douglas B., Hinkelbein J. Comparison of different techniques for in microgravity—A simple mathematic estimation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality for space environment. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2015;33:920–924. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.018.
    1. Rehnberg L., Russomano T., Falcão F., Campos F., Evetts S.N. Evaluation of a Novel Basic Life Support Method in Simulated Microgravity. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2011;82:104–110. doi: 10.3357/ASEM.2856.2011.
    1. Tjelmeland I.B.M., Masterson S., Herlitz J., Wnent J., Bossaert L., Rosell-Ortiz F., Alm-Kruse K., Bein B., Lilja G., Gräsner J.-T., et al. Description of Emergency Medical Services, treatment of cardiac arrest patients and cardiac arrest registries in Europe. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2020;28:1–16. doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00798-7.
    1. Song J., Guo W., Lu X., Kang X., Song Y., Gong D. The effect of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2018;26:86. doi: 10.1186/s13049-018-0552-8.
    1. Rehnberg L., Ashcroft A., Baers J.H., Campos F., Cardoso R.B., Velho R., Gehrke R.D., Dias M.K.P., Baptista R.R., Russomano T. Three Methods of Manual External Chest Compressions During Microgravity Simulation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2014;85:687–693. doi: 10.3357/ASEM.3854.2014.
    1. Jay G.D., Lee P., Goldsmith H., Battat J., Maurer J., Suner S. CPR effectiveness in microgravity: Comparison of three positions and a mechanical device. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2003;74:1183–1189.
    1. Kordi M., Kluge N., Kloeckner M., Russomano T. Gender influence on the performance of chest compressions in simulated hypogravity and microgravity. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2012;83:643–648. doi: 10.3357/ASEM.3171.2012.
    1. Egger A., Niederer M., Tscherny K., Burger J., Fuhrmann V., Kienbacher C., Roth D., Schreiber W., Herkner H. Influence of physical strain at high altitude on the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2020;28:19. doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-0717-0.
    1. Kordi M., Cardoso R.B., Russomano T. A preliminary comparison between methods of performing external chest compressions during microgravity simulation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2011;82:1161–1163. doi: 10.3357/ASEM.3190.2011.
    1. Nakashima Y., Saitoh T., Yasui H., Ueno M., Hotta K., Ogawa T., Takahashi Y., Maekawa Y., Yoshino A. Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Using Wing Boards versus Walking Next to a Moving Stretcher: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020;9:1584. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051584.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться