• Roberto Barcala-Furelos, Joel de Oliveira, Paula Duro-Pichel, Sergio Colón-Leira, Marcos Sanmartín-Montes, and Silvia Aranda-García.
• Universidade de Vigo, REMOSS Research Group, Facultade de Ciencias da Educación e do Deporte, Pontevedra, Spain. Electronic address: roberto.barcala@uvigo.gal.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2024 May 1; 79: 485148-51.

BackgroundA technique called in-water resuscitation (IWR) was devised on a surfboard to ventilate persons who seemingly did not breathe upon a water rescue. Despite IWR still raises uncertainties regarding its applicability, this technique is recommended by the International Liaison Committee for Resuscitation (ILCOR). Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of IWR with a rescue board before and during towing and, to compare rescue times and rescue-associated fatigue levels between rescues with rescue breath attempts and without (SR).MethodsA randomized crossover pilot test was conducted: 1) IWR test with pocket mask and, 2) Conventional SR test. IWR tests were conducted using a Laerdal ResusciAnne manikin (Stavanger, Norway). Three groups of variables were recorded: a) rescue time (in s), b) effective ventilations during rescue, and c) rating of perceived effort (RPE).ResultsFocusing on the rescue time, the performance SR was significantly faster than IWR rescue which took 61 s longer to complete the rescue (Z = -2.805; p = 0.005). No significant differences were found between techniques for the RPE (T = -1.890; p = 0.095). In the IWR analysis, lifeguards performed an average of 27 ± 12 rescue breaths.ConclusionThe application of IWR on a rescue board is feasible both at the time of rescue and during towing. It shortens the reoxygenation time but delays the arrival time to shore. Both IWR and SR result in similar levels of perceived fatigue.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…