English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Current 2010 terrestrial (1G z ) CPR guidelines have been advocated by space agencies for hypogravity and microgravity environments, but may not be feasible. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate rescuer performance over 1.5 min of external chest compressions (ECCs) during simulated Martian hypogravity (0.38G z ) and microgravity (μG) in relation to 1G z  and rest baseline and (2) compare the physiological costs of conducting ECCs in accordance with the 2010 and 2005 CPR guidelines.    Methods  Thirty healthy male volunteers, ranging from 17 to 30 years, performed four sets of 30 ECCs for 1.5 min using the 2010 and 2005 ECC guidelines during 1G z , 0.38G z  and μG simulations (Evetts-Russomano (ER) method), achieved by the use of a body suspension device. ECC depth and rate, range of elbow flexion, post-ECC heart rate (HR), minute ventilation ( V  E ), peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 peak) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured.    Results  All volunteers completed the study. Mean ECC rate was achieved for all gravitational conditions, but true depth during simulated microgravity was not sufficient for the 2005 (28.5 ± 7.0 mm) and 2010 (32.9 ± 8.7 mm) guidelines, even with a mean range of elbow flexion of 15°. HR,  V  E  and VO 2 peak increased to an average of 136 ± 22 bpm, 37.5 ± 10.3 L·min −1 , 20.5 ± 7.6 mL·kg −1 ·min −1  for 0.38G z  and 161 ± 19 bpm, 58.1 ± 15.0 L·min −1 , 24.1 ± 5.6 mL·kg −1 ·min −1  for μG from a baseline of 84 ± 15 bpm, 11.4 ± 5.9 L·min −1 , 3.2 ± 1.1 mL·kg −1 ·min -1 , respectively. RPE was the only variable to increase with the 2010 guidelines.    Conclusion  No additional physiological cost using the 2010 basic life support (BLS) guidelines was needed for healthy males performing ECCs for 1.5 min, independent of gravitational environment. This cost, however, increased for each condition tested when the two guidelines were compared. Effective ECCs were not achievable for both guidelines in simulated μG using the ER BLS method. This suggests that future implementation of an ER BLS in a simulated μG instruction programme as well as upper arm strength training is required to perform effective BLS in space.

A comparison between the 2010 and 2005 basic life support guidelines during simulated hypogravity and microgravity