You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 26, Issue 7
  • Comparison of powered and conventional air-purifying respirators during simulated resuscitation of casualties contaminated with hazardous substances

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original Article
Comparison of powered and conventional air-purifying respirators during simulated resuscitation of casualties contaminated with hazardous substances
  1. J Schumacher1,
  2. S A Gray2,
  3. L Weidelt3,
  4. A Brinker4,
  5. K Prior5,
  6. W M Stratling6
  1. 1
    King’s College, St Thomas’ Campus, London, UK
  2. 2
    London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, UK
  3. 3
    Luebeck University Hospital, Germany
  4. 4
    Department of Anaesthetics, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
  5. 5
    Royal Navy, Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA
  6. 6
    University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
  1. 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

Abstract

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.

https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2008.061531

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding: Funding was provided by departmental support.

    • Competing interests: None.

    • Ethics approval: The study received Trust Research and Development approval from the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust. All compliant subjects gave written and informed consent after having been given a detailed explanation of the treatment protocol and the respiratory protection devices.