• Sébastien Coste, Marc Borne, Solange Ramsang, Patrick Schiano, Marie Viaggi, Xavier Durand, and Cyrus Chargari.
• Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Military Hospital VAL-DE-GRACE, Paris 75005, France. jeanpierre.tourtier@free.fr
• Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Oct 1;29(8):932-5.

ObjectivesThe ability to auscultate during air medical transport is compromised by high ambient noise levels. The aim of this study was to assess the capabilities of a traditional and an amplified stethoscope (which is expected to reduce background and ambient noise) to assess heart and breath sounds during medical transport in a Falcon 50 plane.MethodsA prospective, double-blind, randomized study was performed. We tested 1 model of traditional stethoscope (Littman cardiology III) and 1 model of amplified stethoscope (Littman 3100). We studied heart and lung auscultation during real medical evacuations aboard Falcon 50 (medically configured). For each, the quality of auscultation was described using a numeric rating scale (ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 corresponding to "I hear nothing" and 10 corresponding to "I hear perfectly"). Comparisons were accomplished using a t test for paired values.ResultsA total of 32 comparative evaluations were performed. For cardiac auscultation, the value of the rating scale was 5.8 ± 1.5 and 6.4 ± 1.9, respectively, for the traditional and amplified stethoscope (P = .018). For lung sounds, quality of auscultation was estimated at 3.3 ± 2.4 for traditional stethoscope and at 3.7 ± 2.9 for amplified stethoscope (P = .15).ConclusionsPracticians in Falcon 50 are more able to hear cardiac sounds with an amplified than with a traditional stethoscope, whereas there is no significant difference concerning breath sounds auscultation.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…