From Matterhorn to Mt Everest: empowering rescuers and improving medical care in Nepal.

This article describes a private initiative in which professional Swiss rescuers, based at the foot of the Matterhorn, trained Nepalese colleagues in advanced high altitude helicopter rescue and medical care techniques. What started as a limited program focused on mountain safety has rapidly developed into a comprehensive project to improve rescue and medical care in the Mt Everest area for both foreign travelers and the local Nepalese people.

ABC versus CAB for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective, randomized simulator-based trial

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: After years of advocating ABC (Airway-Breathing-Circulation), current guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recommend CAB (Circulation-Airway-Breathing). This trial compared ABC with CAB as initial approach to CPR from the arrival of rescuers until the completion of the first resuscitation cycle. METHODS: 108 teams, consisting of two physicians each, were randomized to receive a graphical display of either the ABC algorithm or the CAB algorithm. Subsequently teams had to treat a simulated cardiac arrest. Data analysis was performed using video recordings obtained during simulations. The primary endpoint was the time to completion of the first resuscitation cycle of 30 compressions and two ventilations. RESULTS: The time to execution of the first resuscitation measure was 32 ± 12 seconds in ABC teams and 25 ± 10 seconds in CAB teams (P = 0.002). 18/53 ABC teams (34%) and none of the 55 CAB teams (P = 0.006) applied more than the recommended two initial rescue breaths which caused a longer duration of the first cycle of 30 compressions and two ventilations in ABC teams (31 ± 13 vs.23 ± 6 sec; P = 0.001). Overall, the time to completion of the first resuscitation cycle was longer in ABC teams (63 ± 17 vs. 48 ± 10 sec; P <0.0001).CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial found CAB superior to ABC with an earlier start of CPR and a shorter time to completion of the first 30:2 resuscitation cycle. These findings endorse the change from ABC to CAB in international resuscitation guidelines.

Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study

BACKGROUND Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality. METHODS In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups. RESULTS Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups. CONCLUSION While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.