CBRNe Personal Protective Equipment Is Not a Hindrance to Lifesaving Procedures in Prehospital Settings: A Prospective, Repeated-Measures Observational Study.
Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025-09-23 · Observational study
Abstract
Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the usage of Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Protective Personal Equipment (PPE) and ordinary PPE when performing basic and advanced health care support maneuvers in a prehospital setting, evaluating the effectiveness of several procedures, defined as the mean success rate of each. The secondary objective was to evaluate the presence of a learning effect, with improvements in the success rate and/or procedure timing. Methods: This was a prospective within-subjects (repeated-measures) study conducted on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responders within their Chemical-Biological-Radiological-Nuclear-Explosive (CBRNe) training institutional programme. Volunteers performed a trial sequence of eight lifesaving procedures four times. During the first trial sequence, they wore standard clothing; during the three successive trials, they wore full HazMat PPE equipment. The primary outcomes were changes in success rate and time interval across the four trials. Results: A total of 146 EMS responders volunteered for the experiment. Procedure success rates remained high overall, with the most notable initial drop observed for video-assisted intubation (≈-10%). The only statistically significant delay in the first HazMat trial compared with baseline was for intravenous access (median +30 s; p < 0.001). In the two successive HazMat trials, success rates and timings improved, with median values coming close to baseline. However, only 61% of participants completed the entire drill due to tolerance limits of the equipment. Conclusions: HazMat PPE, while physically and ergonomically demanding, has minimal impact on most lifesaving procedures, though it may reduce intubation success and delay intravenous access. Tolerance to prolonged use is a key limitation, but dexterity improves rapidly with brief practice. EMS responders can benefit from continuous training practice, while manufacturers could explore ergonomic and tolerance improvements in their PPE equipment.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Endotracheal intubation · Intravenous access · Paramedics & EMTs · Personal protective equipment · Time intervals · Video laryngoscopy
Related articles
- Airway Management in Disaster Response: A Manikin Study Comparing Direct and Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation by Prehospital Providers in Level C Personal Protective Equipment. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2017)
- Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment. (Am J Emerg Med, 2022)
- Comparison of intubation devices in level C personal protective equipment: A cadaveric study. (Am J Emerg Med, 2018)
- Utility of the Pentax-AWS in performing tracheal intubation while wearing chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear personal protective equipment: a randomised crossover trial using a manikin. (Emerg Med J, 2013)
- IO versus IV access while wearing personal protective equipment in a HazMat scenario. (Prehosp Emerg Care, 2007)
- Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills. (Resuscitation, 2009)