Skip to main content
Log in

CPR im Weltall

Bekannte Techniken zur kardiopulmonalen Reanimation in Schwerelosigkeit

CPR in space

Published techniques for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in microgravity

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Notfall + Rettungsmedizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Aufgrund der guten medizinischen Selektion, des meist jungen Alters und der engmaschigen, intensiven medizinischen Betreuung sind relevante medizinische Probleme bei Astronauten im Weltall vergleichsweise selten. Nichtsdestotrotz besteht die Möglichkeit, dass ein Astronaut in Schwerelosigkeit einen Herz-Kreislauf-Stillstand erleidet und reanimiert werden muss. Ziel der systematischen Untersuchung war die Zusammenstellung und Analyse verschiedener, bekannter und publizierter Techniken zur kardiopulmonalen Reanimation (CPR) unter den Bedingungen der Schwerelosigkeit.

Material und Methoden

Systematische Analyse mit definierten Kriterien in der Datenbank PubMed (http://www.pubmed.com). Verwendet wurden die Suchbegriffe („Reanimation“ oder „CPR“ oder „Resuscitation“) und („Space“ oder „Microgravity“).

Ergebnisse

Durch die Literatursuche mit den angegebenen Suchbegriffen wurden insgesamt 5 unterschiedliche Techniken zur kardiopulmonalen Reanimation in der Schwerelosigkeit [Microgravity (simuliert) oder Weltall (real)] identifiziert: 1) Standardtechnik, 2) Stradling-manoeuver-Technik, 3) Reverse-Bear-Hug-Technik, 4) Evetts-Russomano-Technik, 5) Handstand-Technik. Alle Studien wurden entweder im Parabelflug oder unter simulierten Bedingungen auf der Erde durchgeführt. Keine Studie wurde unter realen Bedingungen im Weltall durchgeführt.

Schlussfolgerungen

Hinsichtlich der Reanimationsqualität scheint die Handstand-Technik am besten geeignet zu sein, um einen Herz-Kreislauf-Stillstand in der Schwerelosigkeit zu behandeln. Bei ungünstigen räumlichen Verhältnissen und einer Nichtanwendbarkeit der Handstand-Technik stellt die Evetts-Russomano-Technik eine adäquate Alternative bei nur minimal schlechterer Reanimationsqualität dar.

Abstract

Background

Due to the careful selection of astronauts, to their low age and intensive medical care, relevant medical problems in astronauts are rare. Nevertheless, there is a certain risk for a cardiac arrest in space requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the present study was to identify and to analyze different known and published techniques for CPR during weightlessness.

Material and methods

A systematic search with defined criteria in the PubMed database was performed. For analysis, the keywords (‟reanimation” or ‟CPR” or ‟resuscitation”) and (‟space” or ‟microgravity”) were used.

Results

Using the defined keywords for the literature search, five different techniques for CPR in space were identified (microgravity [simulated] or space [real]): (1) standard technique; (2) straddling manoeuvre; (3) reverse-bear-hug technique; (4) Evetts–Russomano technique; (5) hand-stand technique. All studies were performed during parabolic flight or under simulated weightlessness (e.g., underwater) on earth. No study was performed under real space conditions.

Conclusions

Concerning CPR quality, the hand-stand technique seems to be most effective to treat cardiac arrest. In some environmental conditions where this technique cannot be used, the Evetts–Russomano technique is a good alternative since CPR quality is only slightly lower.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. AHA (2000) AHA guidelines for resuscitation 2000. Part 3: Adult basic life support. Circulation 102:I22–I59

  2. Auble TE, Menegazzi JJ, Paris PM (1995) Effect of out-of-hospital defibrillation by basic life support providers on cardiac arrest mortality: a metaanalysis. Ann Emerg Med 25:642–648

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Braunecker S, Hinkelbein J (2014) Abstract: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in microgravity and space. Aviat Space Environ Med 85:330

    Google Scholar 

  4. ERC (2000) ERC guidelines for resuscitation 2000. Part 3: Adult basic life support. Resuscitation 46:29–71

  5. Evetts SN, Evetts LM, Russomano T et al (2005) Basic life support in microgravity: evaluation of a novel method during parabolic flight. Aviat Space Environ Med 76:506–510

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Handley AJ, Koster R, Monsieurs K et al (2005) ERC guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation 67(Suppl 1):S7–S23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hinkelbein J, Böttiger BW (2011) The message is clear to save an additional 100,000 lives per year in Europe: 'harder and faster for cardiopulmonary resuscitation'! Eur J Anaesthesiol 28:817–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hinkelbein J, Spelten O (2013) Going beyond anesthesia in space exploration missions: emergency medicine and emergency medical care. Aviat Space Environ Med 84:747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jay GD, Lee P, Goldsmith H et al (2003) CPR effectiveness in microgravity: comparison of three positions and a mechanical device. Aviat Space Environ Med 74:1183–1189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnston SL, Marshburn TH, Lindgren K (2000) Predicted incidence of evacuation-level illness/injury during space station operation. Aviat Space Environ Med 71:333

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kordi M, Cardoso RB, Russomano T (2011) A preliminary comparison between methods of performing external chest compressions during microgravity simulation. Aviat Space Environ Med 82:1161–1163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koster RW, Baubin MA, Bossaert LL et al (2010) ERC guidelines for resuscitation 2010. Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation 81:1277–1292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Norfleet WT (2000) Anesthetic concerns of spaceflight. Anesthesiology 92:1219–1222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rabitsch W, Moser D, Inzunza MR et al (2006) Airway management with endotracheal tube versus combitube during parabolic flights. Anesthesiology 105:696–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rehnberg L, Russomano T, Falcao F et al (2011) Evaluation of a novel basic life support method in simulated microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med 82:104–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Russomano T, Baers JH, Velho R et al (2013) A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity. Extrem Physiol Med 2:11

  17. Summers RL, Johnston SL, Marshburn TH et al (2005) Emergencies in space. Ann Emerg Med 46:177–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Braunecker.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

S. Braunecker und J. Hinkelbein geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Redaktion

M. Fischer, Göppingen

K.-G. Kanz, München

W. Schreiber, Wien

F. Walcher, Magdeburg

Die Originalie ist Teil des Leitthemas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braunecker, S., Hinkelbein, J. CPR im Weltall. Notfall Rettungsmed 18, 274–278 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-015-0002-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-015-0002-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation