Original ContributionAssessing the efficacy of rescue equipment in lifeguard resuscitation efforts for drowning
Introduction
Drowning is a leading global killer, particularly among children and young adults. Worldwide, there are approximately 42 drowning deaths every hour, every day [1]. This number highly underestimates the real figures, even for high-income countries [2].
The whole drowning process, from immersion to cardiac arrest, usually occurs within seconds to a few minutes [3]. Therefore, an early and effective rescue may stop the drowning process and prevent the majority of initial and subsequent water aspiration, the respiratory distress, the need to resuscitation, and the medical complications.
Drowning involves principles and interventions that are rarely or not found in any other medical situations. That is stated in the “drowning chain of survival” [4], which refers to a series of water safety interventions. Its third ring refers specifically to the benefits and the importance of providing flotation to the victim stopping the drowning process as early as possible.
It is worldwide accepted that lifeguards would do a fastest, safest, and harmless rescue, both to himself and to the victim, if using rescue equipment [5]. Currently, several water rescue equipment are available providing safety for the rescuer and may impact positively the time to rescue and consequently the victim's outcome. Its choice and use are based on lifeguard's expert opinions and local practices. Based on nonscientific but best practice concepts, many different pieces of rescue equipment have been used to speed up the rescue. The most common water rescue equipment in use are fins (F), rescue tube (T), and rescue board (RB), used by lifeguard services as a personal floatation device to provide to the victim during a water rescue [6], [7], [8] but not much is known about the specific efficiency of each equipment. Scientific evidence is needed to fill those knowledge gaps [5].
Our objective was to compare in a quasiexperimental trial, a water rescue performed by surf lifeguards with and without equipment, to evaluate the most efficient—the safest equipment with lower rescue time—as well as to assess the effects of each rescue technique on lifeguards' physiological state and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance—tireless.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
A controlled trial was conducted to study the effect of 4 different rescue techniques with and without lifesaving equipment and to assess CPR quality, along with the physiological effects of each rescue technique on lifeguards.
Demographic data
From the 35 lifeguards recruited, 11 were excluded because of not having completed 1 of the 4 rescues or 1 of the 5 CPR trials. The final study sample (n = 23) consisted of 21 men (91%). Mean age was 30 ± 6.77 years; height, 177 ± 10.0 cm; weight, 76 ± 7.72 kg; and BMI, 24.12 ± 2.02 kg/m2. There was no significant age difference between men and women, only in height (P < .001) and weight (P = .02) (Table 1).
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality
Results of CPR quality variables at baseline and after each water rescue trial are shown
Discussion
In drowning, the safer and faster a rescue is accomplished, the better to prevent the asphyxia and decrease the severity of outcomes. To achieve this goal, several pieces of equipment that improve floating and/or reduce rescue times have been recommended and are available for use by surf lifeguards [5], [17], [22]. Rescue material can support floating (RT), provide propulsive (F), or have mixed functions (such as RB).
Our study, conducted under controlled and simulated conditions, using 4
Conclusions
The use of propelling and/or floating equipment saves time during water rescue, entailing saving more lives. The use of any equipment is better than no use. Among the use of rescue equipment, the RB offers a significant advantage when compared with F or FT under studied conditions. Water rescue is a demanding effort even for trained surf lifeguards, regardless of the rescue technique applied. However, this is not a handicap to perform good-quality CPR after rescue. Still, lifeguards need more
Conflict of interest statement
No conflicts of interest to be declared.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all lifeguards and instructors involved in this trial and Ana Catarina Queiroga, Manuela Sestayo Fernandez, and Violeta González Salvado for helping in the review.
References (23)
- et al.
Creating a drowning chain of survival
Resuscitation
(2014) - et al.
Effect of physical fatigue on the quality CPR: a water rescue study of lifeguards: physical fatigue and quality CPR in a water rescue
Am J Emerg Med
(2013) - et al.
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators
Resuscitation
(2010) - et al.
Schoolchildren as life savers: At what age do they become strong enough?
Resuscitation
(2014) - et al.
A different rescuer changing strategy between 30:2 cardiopulmonary resuscitation and hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation that considers rescuer factors: A randomised cross-over simulation study with a time-dependent analysis
Resuscitation
(2012) - et al.
Physiological response of beach lifeguards in a rescue simulation with surf. Ergonomics. Delay and performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in surf lifeguards after simulated cardiac arrest due to drowning
Am J Emerg Med
(2011) - et al.
Surf lifeguard rescues
Wilderness Environ Med
(2013) - et al.
Physiological response of beach lifeguards in a rescue simulation with surf. Ergonomics. Physiological analysis of an aquatic rescue: How a rescuer faces a CPR?
Resuscitation
(2012) Global report on drowning: preventing a leading killer
Australian Policy Online
(2014)- et al.
Quality of cause-of-death reporting using ICD-10 drowning codes: a descriptive study of 69 countries
BMC Med Res Methodol
(2010)
Drowning
N Engl J Med
Cited by (33)
In-water resuscitation during a surf rescue: Time lost or breaths gained? A pilot study
2024, American Journal of Emergency MedicineDoes a short intervention with vibration foam roller recover lifeguards better after a water rescue? A pilot study
2021, American Journal of Emergency MedicineLay-rescuers in drowning incidents: A scoping review
2021, American Journal of Emergency MedicineMeasuring the physiological impact of extreme heat on lifeguards during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Randomized simulation study
2020, American Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Following the values of Foster et al. [25], in the hyperthermic environment, they perceived CPR as “hard”, while in the thermoneutral environment it was “somewhat hard”. RPE using perceived stress scales is a widely used tool with high validity to quantify exercise intensity [37] and is commonly used in resuscitation studies with rescuers [13,30,38,39]. During exercise, numerous physiological mechanisms of heat loss are activated to prevent excessive core temperature increases, but in hot and humid environments this can be a challenge in body thermoregulation [40].
Is it feasible “scoop and run while playing” resuscitation on a rescue water craft? A randomized simulation study with lifeguards
2020, American Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Contrary to our initial hypothesis and the expected results, on the RWC the CCs were not greatly affected by the speed, and we obtained values higher tan 86% in all tests. It has been accepted that a mínimum score of 70% [5–7,13] is an appropriate indicator of resuscitation quality; however, there have been different interpretations of this value, usually based on the limitations of the measuring instruments. Trained lifeguards exceed 70% (E-CPR and Q-CPR) in almost all the study situations, while non-trained lifeguards never reach this percentage.