• Emmanuelle Fontaine, Sébastien Coste, Chrystelle Poyat, Céline Klein, Hugues Lefort, Thomas Leclerc, Stéphane Dubourdieu, Frédérique Briche, Daniel Jost, Olga Maurin, Laurent Domanski, and Jean-Pierre Tourtier.
• Emergency Medical Service, Fire Brigade of Paris, Paris, France. Electronic address: fontaine-emma@hotmail.fr.
• Air Med. J. 2014 Nov 1; 33 (6): 283-5.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of a traditional stethoscope versus an electronically amplified one (expected to reduce background and ambient noise) to assess heart and respiratory sounds during medical transport.Materials And MethodsIt was a prospective, double-blinded, randomized performed study. One traditional stethoscope (Littmann Cardiology III; 3M, St Paul, MN) and 1 electronically amplified stethoscope (Littmann 3200, 3M) were used for our tests. Heart and lung auscultation during real medical evacuations aboard a medically configured Falcon 50 aircrafts were studied. The quality of auscultation was ranged using a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 (0 corresponding to "I hear nothing" and 10 to "I hear perfectly"). Data collected were compared using a t-test for paired values.ResultsA total of 40 comparative evaluations were performed. For cardiac auscultation, the value of the rating scale was 4.53 ± 1.91 and 7.18 ± 1.88 for the traditional and amplified stethoscope, respectively (paired t-test: P < .0001). For respiratory sounds, quality of auscultation was estimated at 3.1 ± 1.95 for a traditional stethoscope and 5.10 ± 2.13 for the amplified one (paired t-test: P < .0001).ConclusionsThis study showed that practitioners would be better helped in hearing cardiac and respiratory sounds with an electronically amplified stethoscope than with a traditional one during air medical transport in a medically configured Falcon 50 aircraft.Copyright © 2014 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…