Mouth-to-mouth, pocket mask, or i-gel® resuscitation on a moving rescue boat: How do different ventilation methods affect CPR? A pilot study

The use of Inflatable Rescue Boats (IRBs) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in aquatic environments presents unique challenges due to their inherent instability and technical limitations. Despite the critical role of effective ventilation in cardiac arrest, there is a significant knowledge gap...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe American journal of emergency medicine Vol. 97; pp. 244 - 248
Main Authors Carracedo-Rodríguez, Eloy, Webber, Jonathon, Fernández-Méndez, María, Otero-Agra, Martín, Alonso-Calvete, Alejandra, Barcala-Furelos, Roberto
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.11.2025
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0735-6757
1532-8171
DOI10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.026

Cover

More Information
Summary:The use of Inflatable Rescue Boats (IRBs) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in aquatic environments presents unique challenges due to their inherent instability and technical limitations. Despite the critical role of effective ventilation in cardiac arrest, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding optimal strategies to achieve this on IRBs. To compare the effectiveness of three ventilation methods—Mouth-to-Mouth (MM), Pocket Mask (PM), and i-gel® supraglottic airway device (IG)—in initiating CPR on a moving IRB. A randomized crossover pilot study was conducted with 16 trained lifeguards. Each participant performed CPR using the three ventilation methods on a resuscitation manikin with the IRB under power (cruising) at 20 knots. The study measured the time to initiate CPR and resuscitation skills, including ventilations and chest compressions. The MM method resulted in the shortest time to initiate CPR, with a median of 4 s, compared to PM and IG, which had medians of 8 and 14 s, respectively. IG was significantly later in initiating ventilation compared to MM (p < 0.001) and IG (p = 0.006). No significant differences were observed in the number of effective ventilations or average ventilation volume among the methods (p > 0.05). Simple strategies such as MM or PM provide ventilations that are just as effective as those using IG in manikins and allow for faster initiation of CPR while under power in an IRB.
ISSN:0735-6757
1532-8171
DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.026