Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T16:10:57.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surviving Collapsed Structure Entrapment after Earthquakes: A “Time-to-Rescue” Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Anthony G. Macintyre ,
Joseph A. Barbera  and
Edward R. Smith
Anthony G. Macintyre*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Joseph A. Barbera
Affiliation:
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Edward R. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
*
Anthony Macintyre, MD Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, The George Washington University, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20037 USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Massive earthquakes often cause structures to collapse, trapping victims under dense rubble for long periods of time. Commonly, this spurs resource intensive, dangerous, and frustrating attempts to find and extricate live victims. The search and rescue phase usually is maintained for many days beyond the last “save,” potentially diverting critical attention and resources away from the pressing needs of non-trapped survivors and the devastated community. This recurring phenomenon is driven by the often-unanswered question “Can anyone still be alive under there?” The maximum survival time in entrapment is an important issue for responders, yet little formal research has been conducted on this issue. Knowing the maximum survival time in entrapment helps responders: (1) decide whether or not they should continue to assign limited resources to search and rescue activities; (2) assess the safety risks versus the benefits; (3) determine when search and rescue activities no longer are indicated; and (4) time and pace the important transition to community recovery efforts.

Methods:

The time period of 1985–2004 was selected for investigation. Medline and Lexis-Nexis databases were searched for earthquake events that occurred within this timeframe. Medical literature articles providing time-torescue data for victims of earthquakes were identified. Lexis-Nexis reports were scanned to select those with time-to-rescue data for victims of earthquakes. Reports from both databases were examined for information that might contribute to prolonged survival of entrapped individuals.

Results:

A total of 34 different earthquake events met study criteria. Fortyeight medical articles containing time-to-rescue data were identified. Of these, the longest time to rescue was “13–19 days” post-event (secondhand data and the author is not specific). The second longest time to rescue in the medical articles was 8.7 days (209 hours). Twenty-five medical articles report multiple rescues that occurred after two days (48 hours). Media reports describe rescues occurring beyond Day 2 in 18 of 34 earthquakes. Of these, the longest reliably reported survival is 14 days after impact, with the next closest having survived 13 days. The average maximum times reported from these 18 earthquakes was 6.8 days (median = 5.75 days). The event with the most media reports of distinct rescue events was the 1999 Marmara, Turkey earthquake (43 victims). Times range from 0.5 days (12 hours) to 6.2 days (146 hours) for this event. Both databases provide little formal data to develop detailed insight into factors affecting survivability during entrapment.

Conclusions:

A thorough search of the English-language medical literature and media accounts provides a provocative picture of numerous survivors beyond 48 hours of entrapment under rubble, with a few successfully enduring entrapment of 13–14 days. These data are not necessarily applicable to non-earthquake collapsed-structure events. For incident managers and their medical advisors, the study findings and discussion may be useful for postimpact decision-making and in establishing and/or revising incident priorities as the response evolves.

Keywords

collapseearthquakeentrapmentsearch and rescuesurvivabilitytime-to-rescue
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 4 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. US Geological Survey, Earthquakes Hazards Program: Earthquakes with 1,000 or more deaths from 1900. Available at http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqsmajr.html. Accessed 21 October 2004.Google Scholar
2.Barbera, J, Cadoux, C: Search, rescue, and evacuation. Crit Care Clin 1991;7(2):321–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Noji, E, Kelen, G, Armenian, H, et al. : The 1988 Earthquake in Soviet Armenia: A case study. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19(8):891–897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Armenian, H, Melkonian, A, Noji, E, et al. : Deaths and injuries due to the earthquake in Armenia: A cohort approach. Intern J Epi 1997;26(4):806–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Durkin, M: Behavior of building occupants in earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1985;1(2):271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Klain, M, Ricci, E, Safar, P, et al. : Disaster reanimatology potentials: A structured interview study in Armenia. I: Methodology and preliminary results. Prehosp Disast Med 1989;4(2):135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Lopez, M, Leon, N: Babies of the earthquake: Follow-up study of their first 15 months. Hillside J Clin Psych 1989;11(2):147–168.Google Scholar
8.Sever, M, Erek, E, Vanholder, R, et al. : The Marmara Earthquake:Epidemiological analysis of the victims of nephrological problems. Kidney International 2001;60:1114–1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Sever, M, Erek, E, Vanholder, R, et al. : Lessons learned from the Marmara Disaster:Time period under the rubble. Crit Care Med 2002;30(11):2443–2449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Pocan, S, Ozkan, S, Us, MH, et al. : Crush Syndrome and Acute Renal Failure in the Marmara Earthquake. Mil Med 2002;167(6):516–518.Google Scholar
11.Sheng, Z: Medical support in the Tangshan Earthquake: A review of the management of mass casualties and certain major injuries. J Trauma 1987;27:1130–1137.Google Scholar
12.Noji, E, Armenian, H, Oganessian A: Issues of rescue and medical care following the 1988 Armenian Earthquake. Intern J Epi 1993;22(6):1070–1076.Google Scholar
13.Redmond, A: Response of the South Manchester Accident and Rescue Team to the Earthquake in Armenia and the Lockerbie air disaster. Brit Med J 1989; 299(6699):611–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Tanaka, K: The Kobe Earthquake: The system response. A disaster report from Japan. Eur J Emerg Med 1996;3:263–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Yoshimura, N, Nakayama, S, Nakagiri, K: Profile of chest injuries arising from the 1995 Southern Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake. Chest 1996;110(3):759–761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Oda, J, Tanaka, H, Yoshiaka, T, et al. : Analysis of 372 patients with crush syndrome caused by the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. J Trauma 1997;42(3):470–475.Google Scholar
17.Sever, M, Erek, E, Vanholder, R, et al. : Renal replacement therapies in the aftermath of the catastrophic Marmara Earthquake. Kidney International 2002;62(6):2264–2271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Sever, M, Erek, E, Vanholder, R, et al. : The Marmara Earthquake: Admission laboratory features of patients with nephrological problems. Neph Dialysis Transplant 2002;17:1025–1031.Google Scholar
19.Ersoy, A, Yavuz, M, Usta, M, et al. : Survival analysis of the factors affecting mortality in injured patients requiring dialysis due to acute renal failure during the Marmara Earthquake: Survivors vs. non-survivors. Clin Nephrology 2003;59(5):334–340.Google Scholar
20.Yavuz, M, Ersoy, A, Donmez, O: The short evaluation of the injured patients with acute renal failure who required dialysis and transferred to our centre during the Marmara Earthquake. Neph Dialysis Transplant 2000;15(7):1100–1101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Yurugen, B, Emir, G, Ersoy, A: Treatment of patients with acute renal failure during the Marmara Earthquake. Edtna-Erca J 2001;27(4):174–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.McQueen, I: The quake of 89. Emerg 1989;1(12):30–33.Google Scholar
23.Redmond, A, Watson, S, Nightingale, P: The South Manchester Accident and Rescue Team and the Earthquake in Iran, June 1990. Brit Med J 1991;302(6791):1521–1523.Google Scholar
24.Angus, D, Pretto, E, Abrams, J, et al. : Epidemiologic assessment of mortality, building collapse pattern, and medical response after the 1992 Earthquake in Turkey. Prehosp Disast Med 1997;12(3):222–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Medical Specialist Course–Student Manual, Urban Search and Rescue System. Available at http://www.fema.gov/usr/medmanual.shtm. Accessed 21 October 2004.Google Scholar
26.Barbera, J, Macintyre A: Urban search and rescue. Emerg Med Clinics of North America 1996;14(2):399–412.Google Scholar
27.Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Structural Collapse Technician Course–Student Manual, Urban Search and Rescue System. Available at http://www.fema.gov/usr/sctc.shtm. Accessed 21 October 2004.Google Scholar
28.Shimazu, T: Fluid resuscitation and systemic complications in crush cyndrome: 14 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake patients. J Trauma 1997;42(4):641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Pretto, E, Ricci, E, Klain, M, et al. : Disaster reanimatology potentials: A structured interview study in Armenia III: Results, conclusions, and recommendations. Prehosp Disast Med 1992;7(4):327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.National Science Foundation: Tip 40128, Tip Sheet (News) Special Edition: NSF-Funded Earthquake Research. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/ pubs/stis1994/tip40128/tip40128.txt. Accessed 15 November 2004.Google Scholar
31. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Field Guide Section 13. Societal Impacts – Field investigation. Available at http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/ Field_Guide_Section_13.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2004.Google Scholar
32. Quick Response Reports. Post Disaster Studies Sponsored by the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center. Natural Hazards Center, Boulder Colorado. Available at http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/qr. Accessed 13 November 04.Google Scholar
33.Handelman, S: 6 Soviets buried by quake survive 35 days. Toronto Star. 13 January 1989, p A1.Google Scholar
34.Cooper, M: A nation challenged, The Trade Center: Guiliani declares that finding anyone still alive in the rubble would be “A miracle.” The New York Times, 25 September 2001, p B9.Google Scholar
35.de Ville de Goyet, C: Stop propagating disaster myths. Prehosp Disast Med 1999; 14(4):213–214. Editorial.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Better, O, Stein, J: Early management of shock and prophylaxis of acute renal failure in traumatic rhabdomyoloysis. N Engl J Med 1990;322:825–829.Google Scholar
37.Dimitrakopoulos, C, Murphy, P: Recollections of two emergency nurses responding to the collapsed Cypress structure after the 1989 Bay Area Earthquake. J Emerg Nursing 1990;16(4):56–59A.Google Scholar
38.Atef, M, Nadjatfi, I, Boroumand, B, et al. : Acute renal failure in earthquake victims in Iran: Epidemiology and management. Quarterly J Med 1994;87:35–40.Google Scholar
39.Roces, M, White, E, Dayrit, M, et al. : Risk factors for injuries due to the 1990 earthquake in Luzon, Philippines. Bulletin World Health Org 1992;70(4):509–514.Google Scholar
40.Adachi, K, Kawata, M, Araki, S, et al. : A case of crush syndrome with giant T waves and reversible left ventricular dysfunction. Japenese Circ Journal 1996;60(10):809–814.Google Scholar
41.Hara, I, Nakano, Y, Okada, H, et al. : Treatment of crush syndrome patients following the Great Hanshin Earthquake. International J Urol 1997;4(2):202–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Hiraide, A, Ohnishi, M: Abdominal and lower extremity crush syndrome. Injury 1997;28(9–10):685–686.Google Scholar
43.Matsuoka, T: Long term physical outcome of patients who suffered crush syndrome after the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake: Prognostic factors in retrospect. J Trauma 2002;52(1):33–39.Google ScholarPubMed
44.Naito, H: The basic hospital and renal replacement therapy in the Great Hanshin Earthquake. Renal Failure 1997;19(50):701–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Nakanishi, K, Shimamoto, S, et al. : [AU-need at least 3 authors] CT, MRI imaging and muscle biopsy in severe crush injury. Acta Radiologica 1997;38(5):903–906.Google Scholar
46.Nakata, Y, Hiraide, A, Kishi, M, et al. : A case of severe crush syndrome with marked hyperkalemia: special consideration for the prevention of renal failure. Am J Emerg Med 1999;17(6):617–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Oda, Y, Shindoh, M, Yukioka, H, et al. : Crush syndrome sustained in the 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake: Treatment and outcome. Ann Emerg Med 1997;30(4):507–512.Google Scholar
48.Yoshida, T, Tada, K, Uemura, K, et al. : Peripheral nerve palsies in victims of the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. Clin Orthop 1999;1(362):208–217.Google Scholar
49.Demirkirian, O, Dikmen, Y, Utku, T, et al. : Crush syndrome in patients after the Marmara Earthquake. Emerg Med J 2003;20(3):247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50.Derici, U, Ozkaya, O, Arinsoy, T, et al. : Increased plasma nitrate levels in patients with crush syndrome in the Marmara Earthquake. Clinica Chemica Acta 2002;322(1–2):99–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Donmez, O, Meral, A: Crush syndrome in children in the Marmara Earthquake, Turkey. Pediatrics International 2001;43(6):678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Duman, H, Kulahci, Y, Sengezer, M: Fasciotomy in crush injury resulting from prolonged pressure in an earthquake in Turkey. Emerg Med J 2003;20(3):247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53.Ensari, C, Tufekcioglu, O: Response to delayed fluid therapy in crush syndrome. Nephron 2002;92(1):941–943.Google Scholar
54.Iskit, S, Alpay, H, Tugtepe, H, et al. : Analysis of 33 pediatric trauma victims in the 1999 Marmara Turkey Earthquake. J Ped Surg 2001;36(2):368–372.Google Scholar
55.Kantarci, G, Vanholder, R, Tuglular, S, et al. : Acute renal failure due to crush syndrome during the Marmara Earthquake. Am J Kidney Diseases 2002;4(4):682–689.Google Scholar
56.Kazancioglu, R, Korular, D, Sever, M: The outcome of patients presenting with crush syndrome after the Marmar Earthquake. International J of Artificial Organs 2001;24(1):17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57.Kazancioglu, R, Catagay, A, Calangu, S, et al. : The characteristics of infections in crush syndrome. Clinical Microbio Infection 2002;8(4):202–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58.Keven, K, Ates, K, Yagmurlu, B, et al. : Renal doppler ultrasonographic findings in earthquake victims with crush injury. J Ultrasound in Med 2001;20:675–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59.Ozdogan, S, Hocaoglu, A, Caglayan, B, et al. : Thorax and lung injuries arising from the two earthquakes in Turkey in 1999. Chest 2001;120(4):1163–1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60.Sarisozen, B, Durak, K: Extremity injuries in children resulting from the 1999 Marmara Earthquake:An epidemiologic study. J Ped Orthop 2003;12(4):299–301.Google Scholar
61.Huang, K, Lee, T, Lin, Y, et al. : Clinical features and outcomes of crush syndrome caused by the Chi-Chi Earthquake. J Formosan Med Assoc 2002;101(4):249–256.Google ScholarPubMed
62.Yi-szu, W, Chung-Ping, H, Tzu-Chieh, L, et al. : Chest injuries transferred to trauma centers after the 1999 Taiwan Earthquake. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18(7):825–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63.Gunal, A, Celiker, H, Dogukan, A, et al. : Early and vigorous fluid resuscitation prevents acute renal failure in the crush victims of catastrophic earthquakes. J Amer Society of Nephrology 2004;15:1862–1867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed