In this study we assessed the effects of changes in pH, temperature, and their combination in whole blood on thromboelastographic variables. Blood was collected from six healthy volunteers. Thromboelastograph (TEG series 5000; Haemoscope Corporation, Illinois, USA) channels were set at temperatures of 32, 37, and 39 degrees C and each was filled with artificially acidified, alkalified, and neutral blood, respectively. Acidification (pH 6.95) significantly impairs thromboelastographic variables reaction time r (from 23.3 to 33.7 min; P = 0.0280), kinetic time k (from 8.7 to 16.1 min; P = 0.028), angle alpha (from 24.3 degrees to 13.8 degrees ; P = 0.028), prothrombin time (from 11.4 to 12.1 s; P = 0.044), and activated partial thromboplastin time (from 29.3 to 45.0 s; P = 0.028). A temperature drop from 37 to 32 degrees C in blood of neutral pH significantly impaired k (from 8.7 to 10.2 min; P = 0.028) and alpha (from 24.3 degrees to 21.0 degrees ; P = 0.027), whereas maximum amplitude ma significantly increased (from 46.5 to 52.5 mm; P = 0.027). A temperature rise from 37 to 39 degrees C at pH 7.37 did not affect any of the TEG variables. Artificial alkalization (pH 7.68) at a temperature of 37 degrees C had no effect on any of the measured variables. Acidosis causes a significant impairment of clot formation and clot strength. Hypothermia had the same effects, but to a lesser extent. These findings emphasize the need for correction of acidosis and hypothermia to normalize haemostasis.

Introduction: Crewmembers of the “Royal Netherlands Sea Rescue Institution” (KNRM) lifeboats must wear heavy survival suits with integrated lifejackets. This and the challenging environment onboard (boat movements, limited space) might influence Basic Life Support (BLS) performance. The primary objective of this study was to assess the impact of the protective gear on single-rescuer BLS-quality.Material and Methods: Sixty-five active KNRM crewmembers who had recently undergone a BLS-refresher course were randomized to wear either their protective gear (n = 32) or their civilian clothes (n = 33; control group) and performed five 2-min sessions of single rescuer BLS on a mannequin on dry land. BLS-quality was assessed according to Dutch and European Resuscitation guidelines. A between group analysis (Mann-Whitney U) and a repeated within group analysis of both groups (Friedman test) were performed.Results: There were no major demographic differences between the groups. The protective gear did not significant impair BLS-quality. It was also not associated with a significant increase in the perceived exertion of BLS (Borg's Rating scale). Compression depth, compression frequency, the percentage of correct compression depth and of not leaning on the thorax, and ventilation volumes in both groups were suboptimal when evaluated according to the BLS-guidelines.Conclusions: The protective gear worn by KNRM lifeboat-crewmembers does not have a significant influence on BLS-quality under controlled study conditions. The impact and significance on outcome in real life situations needs to be studied further. This study provides valuable input for optimizing the BLS-skills of lifeboat crewmembers.