救生员水上营救过程中四肢应用止血带 (AFLAT) 的水上可行性:模拟试点研究。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1017/S1049023X24000050
Roberto Barcala Furelos, Andrew Schmidt, José Manteiga Urbón, Silvia Aranda García, Martín Otero-Agra, Nicolò di Tullio, Joel de Oliveira, Santiago Martínez Isasi, Felipe Fernández-Méndez
{"title":"救生员水上营救过程中四肢应用止血带 (AFLAT) 的水上可行性:模拟试点研究。","authors":"Roberto Barcala Furelos, Andrew Schmidt, José Manteiga Urbón, Silvia Aranda García, Martín Otero-Agra, Nicolò di Tullio, Joel de Oliveira, Santiago Martínez Isasi, Felipe Fernández-Méndez","doi":"10.1017/S1049023X24000050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Control of massive hemorrhage (MH) is a life-saving intervention. The use of tourniquets has been studied in prehospital and battlefield settings but not in aquatic environments.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this research is to assess the control of MH in an aquatic environment by analyzing the usability of two tourniquet models with different adjustment mechanisms: windlass rod versus ratchet.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A pilot simulation study was conducted using a randomized crossover design to assess the control of MH resulting from an upper extremity arterial perforation in an aquatic setting. A sample of 24 trained lifeguards performed two randomized tests: one using a windlass-based Combat Application Tourniquet 7 Gen (T-CAT) and the other using a ratchet-based OMNA Marine Tourniquet (T-OMNA) specifically designed for aquatic use on a training arm for hemorrhage control. The tests were conducted after swimming an approximate distance of 100 meters and the tourniquets were applied while in the water. The following parameters were recorded: time of rescue (rescue phases and tourniquet application), perceived fatigue, and technical actions related to tourniquet skills.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With the T-OMNA, 46% of the lifeguards successfully stopped the MH compared to 21% with the T-CAT (P = .015). The approach swim time was 135 seconds with the T-OMNA and 131 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .42). The total time (swim time plus tourniquet placement) was 174 seconds with the T-OMNA and 177 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .55). The adjustment time (from securing the Velcro to completing the manipulation of the windlass or ratchet) for the T-OMNA was faster than with the T-CAT (six seconds versus 19 seconds; P < .001; effect size [ES] = 0.83). The perceived fatigue was high, with a score of seven out of ten in both tests (P = .46).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lifeguards in this study demonstrated the ability to use both tourniquets during aquatic rescues under conditions of fatigue. The tourniquet with the ratcheting-fixation system controlled hemorrhage in less time than the windlass rod-based tourniquet, although achieving complete bleeding control had a low success rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":20400,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"52-58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aquatic Feasibility of Limbs Application of Tourniquets (AFLAT) during a Lifeguard Water Rescue: A Simulation Pilot Study.\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Barcala Furelos, Andrew Schmidt, José Manteiga Urbón, Silvia Aranda García, Martín Otero-Agra, Nicolò di Tullio, Joel de Oliveira, Santiago Martínez Isasi, Felipe Fernández-Méndez\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1049023X24000050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Control of massive hemorrhage (MH) is a life-saving intervention. The use of tourniquets has been studied in prehospital and battlefield settings but not in aquatic environments.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this research is to assess the control of MH in an aquatic environment by analyzing the usability of two tourniquet models with different adjustment mechanisms: windlass rod versus ratchet.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A pilot simulation study was conducted using a randomized crossover design to assess the control of MH resulting from an upper extremity arterial perforation in an aquatic setting. A sample of 24 trained lifeguards performed two randomized tests: one using a windlass-based Combat Application Tourniquet 7 Gen (T-CAT) and the other using a ratchet-based OMNA Marine Tourniquet (T-OMNA) specifically designed for aquatic use on a training arm for hemorrhage control. The tests were conducted after swimming an approximate distance of 100 meters and the tourniquets were applied while in the water. The following parameters were recorded: time of rescue (rescue phases and tourniquet application), perceived fatigue, and technical actions related to tourniquet skills.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With the T-OMNA, 46% of the lifeguards successfully stopped the MH compared to 21% with the T-CAT (P = .015). The approach swim time was 135 seconds with the T-OMNA and 131 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .42). The total time (swim time plus tourniquet placement) was 174 seconds with the T-OMNA and 177 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .55). The adjustment time (from securing the Velcro to completing the manipulation of the windlass or ratchet) for the T-OMNA was faster than with the T-CAT (six seconds versus 19 seconds; P < .001; effect size [ES] = 0.83). The perceived fatigue was high, with a score of seven out of ten in both tests (P = .46).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lifeguards in this study demonstrated the ability to use both tourniquets during aquatic rescues under conditions of fatigue. The tourniquet with the ratcheting-fixation system controlled hemorrhage in less time than the windlass rod-based tourniquet, although achieving complete bleeding control had a low success rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"52-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X24000050\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X24000050","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介控制大出血(MH)是一项拯救生命的干预措施。止血带的使用已在院前和战场环境中进行过研究,但尚未在水上环境中进行过研究:本研究旨在通过分析两种不同调节机制(辘轳杆和棘轮)的止血带模型的可用性,评估在水生环境中对 MH 的控制:方法:采用随机交叉设计进行了一项试验性模拟研究,以评估在水上环境中对上肢动脉穿孔造成的 MH 的控制。24 名训练有素的救生员进行了两次随机测试:一次使用基于卷扬机的战斗应用止血带 7 Gen (T-CAT),另一次使用基于棘轮的 OMNA 海洋止血带 (T-OMNA),该止血带专门设计用于在训练臂上进行水上出血控制。测试在游泳约 100 米后进行,止血带在水中使用。测试记录了以下参数:抢救时间(抢救阶段和使用止血带)、感觉疲劳度以及与止血带技能相关的技术动作:使用 T-OMNA 时,46% 的救生员成功阻止了 MH,而使用 T-CAT 时只有 21%(P = .015)。使用 T-OMNA 的游泳时间为 135 秒,使用 T-CAT 的游泳时间为 131 秒(P = .42)。T-OMNA 的总时间(游泳时间加止血带放置时间)为 174 秒,T-CAT 为 177 秒(P = .55)。T-OMNA 的调整时间(从固定尼龙搭扣到完成操作卷扬机或棘轮)比 T-CAT 快(6 秒对 19 秒;P < 0.001;效应大小 [ES] = 0.83)。疲劳感较高,两项测试的满分均为 7 分(P = .46):结论:在这项研究中,救生员证明了在水上救援过程中在疲劳条件下使用两种止血带的能力。使用棘轮固定系统的止血带控制出血的时间比使用辘轳杆的止血带短,但完全控制出血的成功率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Aquatic Feasibility of Limbs Application of Tourniquets (AFLAT) during a Lifeguard Water Rescue: A Simulation Pilot Study.

Introduction: Control of massive hemorrhage (MH) is a life-saving intervention. The use of tourniquets has been studied in prehospital and battlefield settings but not in aquatic environments.

Objective: The aim of this research is to assess the control of MH in an aquatic environment by analyzing the usability of two tourniquet models with different adjustment mechanisms: windlass rod versus ratchet.

Methodology: A pilot simulation study was conducted using a randomized crossover design to assess the control of MH resulting from an upper extremity arterial perforation in an aquatic setting. A sample of 24 trained lifeguards performed two randomized tests: one using a windlass-based Combat Application Tourniquet 7 Gen (T-CAT) and the other using a ratchet-based OMNA Marine Tourniquet (T-OMNA) specifically designed for aquatic use on a training arm for hemorrhage control. The tests were conducted after swimming an approximate distance of 100 meters and the tourniquets were applied while in the water. The following parameters were recorded: time of rescue (rescue phases and tourniquet application), perceived fatigue, and technical actions related to tourniquet skills.

Results: With the T-OMNA, 46% of the lifeguards successfully stopped the MH compared to 21% with the T-CAT (P = .015). The approach swim time was 135 seconds with the T-OMNA and 131 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .42). The total time (swim time plus tourniquet placement) was 174 seconds with the T-OMNA and 177 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .55). The adjustment time (from securing the Velcro to completing the manipulation of the windlass or ratchet) for the T-OMNA was faster than with the T-CAT (six seconds versus 19 seconds; P < .001; effect size [ES] = 0.83). The perceived fatigue was high, with a score of seven out of ten in both tests (P = .46).

Conclusions: Lifeguards in this study demonstrated the ability to use both tourniquets during aquatic rescues under conditions of fatigue. The tourniquet with the ratcheting-fixation system controlled hemorrhage in less time than the windlass rod-based tourniquet, although achieving complete bleeding control had a low success rate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
13.60%
发文量
279
期刊介绍: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM) is an official publication of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine. Currently in its 25th volume, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine is one of the leading scientific journals focusing on prehospital and disaster health. It is the only peer-reviewed international journal in its field, published bi-monthly, providing a readable, usable worldwide source of research and analysis. PDM is currently distributed in more than 55 countries. Its readership includes physicians, professors, EMTs and paramedics, nurses, emergency managers, disaster planners, hospital administrators, sociologists, and psychologists.
期刊最新文献
Prehospital Care Under Fire: Strategies for Evacuating Victims from the Mega Terrorist Attack in Israel on October 7, 2023 Challenges and Clinical Impact of Medical Search and Rescue Efforts Following the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake. Early Vital Sign Thresholds Associated with 24-Hour Mortality among Trauma Patients: A Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) Study - CORRIGENDUM. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Augmented Reality Just-in-Time Guidance for the Performance of Rugged Field Procedures. Integrating Disaster and Dignitary Medicine Principles into a Medical Framework for Organizational Travel Health and Security Planning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1