Treatment of a suspected victim of decompression Sickness outside Recompression Chamb

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I can't add much to what Dan said. In-water recompression on air is highly inadvisable. The U.S. Navy advises considering in-water recompression on O2 only when the diver is more than 12 hours' transport from a recompression facility.

With in-water recompression on air to 60 feet there are a number of factors at play. First, the inspired pO2 is increased nearly three times to 0.59 ATA, the equivalent of about 60% O2 on the surface. Second, the inspired pN2 is also increased by a factor of almost three. One is beneficial, the other is detrimental. There may (repeat may) be some brief initial off-gassing benefit from the increased inspired pO2, but at what point during the treatment is that benefit negated by the increased inspired pN2? It's impossible to tell. Add to this the need to maintain hydration and body temperature, and it becomes clear that the risk of in-water recompression on air greatly exceeds any benefit that might be gained.

The closest comparison would be one of the USN air treatment tables, used by the Navy as a last resort (e.g. if the chamber O2 system fails). USN treatment table 3 us used for serious symptoms. It begins with initial recompression to 165 feet to crush any extant bubbles then slowly decompresses the diver on what amounts to an air saturation decompression schedule. To be clear, I'm not advocating that they use this in the water (note the 165 foot spike and the 21+ hour treamtent time). I'm pointing out that the protocol the US Navy believes is beneficial for air treatment of decompression sickness is way more involved than what your Libyan divers are doing. They're probably hurting more than they're helping. The best advice has already been posted, that is, change diving practices to avoid situations like this. If they won't do that, they should transport their injured divers to a medical facility rather than recompress them in the water using air.

TT3.jpg

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
DDM
 
Forgot to mention, this is in Libya which is still in the dark ages as far as diving medicine. No one carries O2 or anything. In fact, most of these guys go spearfishing at these depths to catch the big grouper. MOST of them are not certified either.

Are these people subsistence fishing, either to sell the fish or to feed themselves and their families? Because if they are then maybe that's the real problem.

If none of us actually understand DCS and you get hit and that means that I and the rest of the divers in the boat need to scrub for the day so that you can go get medical treatment you simply can't afford - hey, suddenly IWS sounds like the best answer all round.
 
Most of them spearfish to earn a living or at least as a part time job but they aren't as poor as some others in much poorer countries. It is mostly ignorance and being totally isolated from modern knowledge in the rest of world. There is also a "macho" attitude where rules apply to the "feeble" ones not to "us." IT all comes down to serious lack of knowledge made worse by stubbornness and attitude resistant to change or to new ideas. No doubt that there is the financial need for many even though the country is one of the richest countries in many natural resources but it isn't in general as bad as some countries in Asia or Central America.

IWR isn't so they would go back to diving on that day but mostly because they understand that this is an effective way to treat DCS.
 
So what would you say if someone said to you, "Well, it looks like we can't get you to treatment in time. Do you have any last words? Any message for your wife and kids?"

In that case, I am going to guess that you might say, "What do you say we give this IWR thing a try?"

If I ever found myself in that situation you guess correctly. I absolutely would try IWR. Chances of it working without O2 seems minimal though. But if you have no other choice.............
 
If I ever found myself in that situation you guess correctly. I absolutely would try IWR. Chances of it working without O2 seems minimal though. But if you have no other choice.............

Right, but what benefit would you get from it, especially considering that you're breathing compressed air, and what would the risks be?

This is something I wonder about and would love to hear from you, Dan, Dr. Powell, and anyone else who wants to weigh in: who would derive the most benefit from in-water recompression? Is it the mildly injured diver who needs little support and may get his 8/10 shoulder pain relieved with some O2 at 30 feet, or is it the paralyzed diver with the beginnings of the chokes who could certainly benefit from O2 under pressure but is also most likely to decompensate at depth?

Best regards,
DDM
 
I expect those that would be the most in need of this in water re compression due to severity and distance to treatment...would also be the least likely to be able to properly perform the protocols this would call for....For one, this would call for an extremely long series of stops, any one of which may need to be held longer than initially planned if pains are suggesting that absorption is not yet sufficient--this even to the extent of needing to go to one stop deeper in depth ...so the diver will need to recalculate on the fly...George Irvine could easily have done this....I am sure there are plenty of us in the tech world that could do this if we had to...but I don't see any of us getting ourselves into a situation like this...those doing these dives with the myriad of catastrophic mistakes, will be unlikely to be able to do the on the fly table mods, and they will be way over there heads with decompression schedules that could run for many hours and over a half dozen or more tanks....could they handle the mental stress of being in the water in this kind of life and death deco this long? Could they handle the gear switches? ALL the issues that put them in this bad situation, are screaming out that they could never do the proper in water air recompression...

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
 
For a much more complete treatment of IWR than presented in the Alert Diver article linked above, see the below on in water recompression that I wrote for Undercurrent(Scuba Diving Magazine, Undercurrent Reviews Liveaboards, Dive Resorts, , & Dive Gear) :

"In-Water Recompression (IWR)

You’ve sustained DCS in a remote location, many hours by air from the nearest hyperbaric chamber. The air ambulance cannot fly due to weather, and even if it could it’s uncertain if the chamber is fully operational. What to do? Some divers, especially those of a technical inclination, might respond, “How about in-water recompression?”

Not to be confused with the technique of re-entering the water to complete a missed deco obligation, IWR uses the pressure of water itself coupled with breathing high concentrations of O2 immediately following the first signs or symptoms of DCS.

The 4 primary techniques for IWR are commonly referred to as the Australian, U.S. Navy, Hawaiian, & Pyle methods. While each method differs somewhat & requires its own equipment, all methods require personnel knowledgeable in IWR, skilled tenders & adequate supplies of pure O2 or other gas.

All are precluded if the diver is unconscious, in shock or shows paralysis, vertigo or respiratory distress, or is seemingly unable to complete the procedure due to factors such as fear or possible hypothermia. Additionally, all variants direct that appropriate emergency transport be requested immediately and that medical attention be received as soon as possible even in those cases of IWR which appear completely successful.

Generally, mixes with higher concentrations of O2 are preferred over those with lower ones given their higher potential for off-gassing nitrogen, although any concentration above normoxic is superior to compressed air. One hundred percent O2 is recommend by all variants of IWR, although since the risk of O2 induced convulsions increases with increasing PO2 at least one expert has opined that 80% my be more appropriate. Whatever mix is used, it is best inspired via a full-face mask if possible. Not only does this help to insure that gas is available during a possible seizure, but the positive pressure aspect of most full-face masks promotes maximal O2 delivery, and their design may even bestow some thermal benefits. It is a decided plus if the mask has an integrated communications system.

IWR was possibly first applied to bent sponge divers off Key West by “Doc” Axle Buckmeister back in the late 1800s. More formalized forms have long been practiced by Hawaiian diving fishermen and Australian pearl & abalone divers. Veteran technical diving expert Bret Gilliam has knowledgeably written on the topic. It has been most recently & vigorously championed by Richard Pyle, a diver-academic currently working in the ichthyology collection at Bishop Museum in Honolulu & completing a Ph.D. in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii. Another solid supporter is Dr. Ann Kristovich, Women Divers Hall of Fame member & co-leader of The Proyecto De Buceo Espeleologico Mexico Y America Central. She holds that if travel time to a recompression chamber would take longer than 30 minutes, the time frame of the “Hawaiian Method” of IWR discussed below, then IWR is recommended.

Not surprisingly, major recreational dive training agencies are very circumspect regarding IRW. PADI Educational Consultant Leroy Wickham told me that IWR is not taught in any of their programs, nor would the procedure be recommended except under extraordinary circumstances and then only by qualified & properly equipped personnel. Several technical agencies, IANTD & TDI among them, briefly touch on IWR as part of their curriculum for trimix classes, and the entire procedure for the Australian variant is published in IANTD’s “Technical Diver Encyclopedia.” In a phone conversation, the encyclopedia’s author and IANTD founder Tom Mount reported that IANTD does not yet teach IWR because of its lack of broad acceptance. He includes a caveat that IWR is only to be done by qualified & properly equipped individuals in remote areas where a chamber is not readily available. When pressed for an example of such a location, he named Bikini, where chamber treatment could be 36 hours away. Fascinatingly, he mentioned performing the technique on about 15 divers over the years, including his wife during a trip a Roatan before a chamber was available there. His reported success rate is a startling 100%.

Dive medicine organizations express a similar prudence, indicating that such factors as fatigue, cold, panic, seasickness or an exhausted gas supply can result in incomplete treatment and a worsening of the DCS due to additional nitrogen on-loading. Not to be overlooked are such things as possible 02 induced convulsions, hypothermia, risk to tending divers, and the list goes on. Joel Dovenbarger, RN, Vice President of Medical Services at DAN, told me IWR should only be considered in those unique remote areas of the world where conventional & proven methods are not available, and where there are the requisite trained personnel & logistical support. Overseas, the recommendation of the 1996 Second European Consensus Conference on the Treatment of Recreational Diving Decompression Accidents was that “in water recompression should never be performed as the initial recompression.”

Despite warnings from various agencies, the sobering reality is that in Type II hits with serious vascular obstruction, irreversible tissue damage to brain can occur after about 7 minutes, to spinal cord after about 15 minutes & to lung after about 10-20 minutes. In addition, research has consistently shown that the sooner DCS of any nature is treated, the more salubrious the outcome.

Leaving aside the practical arguments for and agency positions on IWR, there is a strong theoretical basis to speculate that the procedure could be beneficial if applied correctly. Expected would be a reduction in bubble growth due to both increased pressure and the washout of nitrogen by high blood levels of O2. Additionally, the increased PO2 from breathing pure oxygen could mitigate tissue hypoxia secondary to gas embolization.

Clearly the proper place for IWR lies within the field of technical diving due to both the training received and gases used. This seems appropriate, as technical divers are probably the most likely to get DCS, and the most likely to get bent in venues inconvenient to medical care & hyperbaric facilities.

The following discussion of each technique are simplified, but convey their essences.

Australian
The most popular to date, the Australian procedure mandates continuous breathing of 100% oxygen at a depth of 30’for 30 minutes for mild symptoms up to 90 minutes for severe ones. As a rule of thumb, it seems prudent to remain at the target depth for as close to the maximum time as diver & environmental conditions allow. Ascent rate is not to exceed 1’per 4 minutes, and inspiration of pure O2 is to continue for 1 hour periods interrupted with 1 hour breaks for a period of 12 continuous hours. (Also see * below)

Hawaiian
Reasoning that increased atmospheres provide increased reduction in bubble size, the Hawaiian method directs a “spike” on air to 30’ deeper than the depth at which symptoms resolve, but not more than 165’, for 10 minutes. The diver then ascends to 30’ and breathes surface supplied oxygen for prolonged periods. Any O2 still on board after surfacing is to be finished. It remains uncertain whether the increased NO2 uptake occasioned by the air spike is offset by the increased pressure effect, and this may well be one reason it is not recommended by as many proponents as the Australian method. The additional depth involved also has obvious drawbacks. In the absence of equipment necessary for surface supplied O2, the procedure easily can be adapted for execution with full-face mask or standard scuba gear.

US Navy
The least often recommended of the established techniques is the US Navy’s. Most likely because it requires substantial amounts of pure O2, and recommends use of a 100% O2 rebreather. It directs descent to 30’ for 30 minutes for Type I DCS & 90 minutes for Type II, followed by an ascent completed in two 60 minute segments, one at 20’ and a second 10’. Pure oxygen is to be inspired continuously for 3 hours after surfacing. The technique could readily be adapted for full-face mask or surface supplied approaches. The Navy method is recommended in situations where a hyperbaric facility is more than 12 hours away.

Pyle
The newest & most complex, the Pyle method allows for use of surface, mounted cylinder or rebreather supplied pure or diluted oxygen mixtures. At the first indication of DCS, 100% oxygen is administered at the surface for 10 minutes, during which the progression of symptoms is assessed, and logistical & environmental conditions evaluated. If IWR appears appropriate after this appraisal, the diver & a tender are lowered to a depth of 25’ breathing 100% oxygen for 10 minutes. If symptoms are resolving after 10 minutes of IWR, depth is maintained and pure O2 continued for 90 minutes, interspersed with 5 minute periods breathing air or EAN every 20 minutes. Should symptoms persist or progress after the initial 10 minutes at 25 ft, breathing gas is changed to air or EAN and a potentially complicated series of descents at 25 foot increments, not to exceed 125’, are conducted.

So, how effective is IWR? Although research data to date lacks scientific rigor, and is scattered & cuts across a hodge-podge of divers, variants & gases, a meta-analysis does suggest the procedure has some efficacy. It appears that majority of bent divers come out of IWR either asymptomatic or improved, with only a small fraction being worsened or having an ambiguous result. This tentative finding is especially provocative given that much of the reported IWR was done using compressed air rather than recommended 100% O2.

While IWR obviously requires much further study & adjustment, it has a promising future under the unique set of circumstances for which it is designed."


*The actual Australian protocol is:

Equipment

The following equipment is essential before attempting this form of treatment:

1. Full face mask with demand valve and surface supply system or helmet with free flow.

2. Adequate supply of 100% oxygen for patient, and air for attendant, typically about 200 cf per treatment.

3. Shot with at least 10 metres of rope (a seat or harness may be rigged to the shot).

4. Some form of communication system between patient, attendant and surface, preferably voice communications.

Method

1. The patient is lowered on the shot rope to 9 metres (30 fsw), breathing 100% oxygen.

2. Ascent is commenced after 30 minutes in mild cases, or 60 minutes in sever cases, if improvement has occurred. These times may be extended to 60 minutes and 90 minutes respectively if there is no improvement.

3. Ascent is at the rate of 1 metre every 12 minutes. Staging may be applied where applicable.

4. If symptoms recur remain at depth a further 30 minutes before continuing ascent.

5. If oxygen supply is exhausted, return to the surface, rather than breathe air.

6. After surfacing the patient should be given one hour on oxygen, one hour off, for a further 12 hours."


Had enough yet?

Cheers,

DocVikingo
 
In the event of a severe injury of a diver who is thought to exhibit signs of DCS in a context where there is none of required first aid supplies; such as O2 or properly trained personnel capable to provide the needed treatment, and where recompression chamber and/or proper medical facility are hours away from the incident . . .

If actual care is only a couple of hours away, it's better to transport them to where actual care can be obtained than to stay where they are and try something with a really significant chance of not working.

If you look at DDM's chart, you'll notice that it's 21.5 HOURS. You're much better off spending a couple of hours getting to an actual treatment facility than spending all day and all night underwater, hoping you'll get lucky.

flots
 
Last edited:
So far based on the information reported here, for the Libyan specific scenario where no 100% O2, properly trained divers or support personnel are available, IWR on air for divers who surface with DCS is, in the best scenario, useless and would actually cause more harm than good.
 
So far based on the information reported here, for the Libyan specific scenario where no 100% O2, properly trained divers or support personnel are available, IWR on air for divers who surface with DCS is, in the best scenario, useless and would actually cause more harm than good.

It certainly has a very high probability of doing so.

Regards,

DocVikingo
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom