Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Emergency Medicine Journal 2009;26:501-505; doi:10.1136/emj.2008.061531
© 2009 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the College of Emergency Medicine.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Comparison of powered and conventional air-purifying respirators during simulated resuscitation of casualties contaminated with hazardous substances

J Schumacher1, S A Gray2, L Weidelt3, A Brinker4, K Prior5, W M Stratling6

1 King’s College, St Thomas’ Campus, London, UK
2 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, UK
3 Luebeck University Hospital, Germany
4 Department of Anaesthetics, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
5 Royal Navy, Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA
6 University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr J Schumacher, GKT School of Medicine, King’s College London, St Thomas’ Campus, Department of Anaesthetics, London SE1 7EH, UK; jan.schumacher{at}kcl.ac.uk

Background: Advanced life support of patients contaminated with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) substances requires adequate respiratory protection for medical first responders. Conventional and powered air-purifying respirators may exert a different impact during resuscitation and therefore require evaluation. This will help to improve major incident planning and measures for protecting medical staff.

Methods: A randomised crossover study was undertaken to investigate the influence of conventional negative pressure and powered air-purifying respirators on the simulated resuscitation of casualties contaminated with hazardous substances. Fourteen UK paramedics carried out a standardised resuscitation algorithm inside an ambulance vehicle, either unprotected or wearing a conventional or a powered respirator. Treatment times, wearer mobility, ease of communication and ease of breathing were determined and compared.

Results: In the questionnaire, volunteers stated that communication and mobility were similar in both respirator groups while breathing resistance was significantly lower in the powered respirator group. There was no difference in mean (SD) treatment times between the groups wearing respiratory protection and the controls (245 (19) s for controls, 247 (17) s for conventional respirators and 250 (12) s for powered respirators).

Conclusions: Powered air-purifying respirators improve the ease of breathing and do not appear to reduce mobility or delay treatment during a simulated resuscitation scenario inside an ambulance vehicle with a single CBRN casualty.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This Article

Services
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

 

The journal is co-owned by and the official journal of College of Emergency Medicine

Official journal of British Association for Immediate Care: BASICS, Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care, Irish Society for Immediate Care and Swedish Society for Emergency Medicine: SweSEM

Emergency Medicine Jobs

Emergency Medicine Jobs