J U Na1, S K Han, P C Choi, J H Cho, D H Shin. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different face mask designs can influence bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation performance during resuscitation. We compared a single-use, air-cushioned face mask (AM) with a reusable silicone face mask (SM) for quality of BVM ventilation on a manikin simulating cardiac arrest. METHODS:Thirty-two physicians were recruited, and a prospective, randomized, crossover observational study was conducted after an American Heart Association-accredited basic life support provider course and standardized practice time were completed. Participants performed 12 cycles of BVM ventilation with both the AM and SM on a SmartMan lung simulator. RESULTS:Mean tidal volume was significantly higher in ventilations performed using the AM vs. the SM (548 ± 159 ml vs. 439 ± 163 ml, P < 0.01). In addition, the proportion of low-volume ventilation was significantly lower with the AM than the SM [6/12 (2-11) vs. 9/12 (5-12), P = 0.03]. Bag-valve-AM ventilation volume was not affected by the physical characteristics of the rescuers, except for sex. In contrast, bag-valve-SM ventilation volume was affected by most of the characteristics tested, including sex, height, weight, hand width, hand length, and grip power. CONCLUSION: The AM seems to be a more efficient face mask than the SM at delivering sufficient ventilation volumes. The performance of the AM did not seem to be associated with the physical characteristics of the rescuers, whereas that of the SM was affected by these factors. The SM may not be an appropriate face mask for performing one-person BVM ventilation during resuscitation for rescuers who are smaller in stature, have a smaller hand size, or have weaker grip power.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Different face mask designs can influence bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation performance during resuscitation. We compared a single-use, air-cushioned face mask (AM) with a reusable silicone face mask (SM) for quality of BVM ventilation on a manikin simulating cardiac arrest. METHODS: Thirty-two physicians were recruited, and a prospective, randomized, crossover observational study was conducted after an American Heart Association-accredited basic life support provider course and standardized practice time were completed. Participants performed 12 cycles of BVM ventilation with both the AM and SM on a SmartMan lung simulator. RESULTS: Mean tidal volume was significantly higher in ventilations performed using the AM vs. the SM (548 ± 159 ml vs. 439 ± 163 ml, P < 0.01). In addition, the proportion of low-volume ventilation was significantly lower with the AM than the SM [6/12 (2-11) vs. 9/12 (5-12), P = 0.03]. Bag-valve-AM ventilation volume was not affected by the physical characteristics of the rescuers, except for sex. In contrast, bag-valve-SM ventilation volume was affected by most of the characteristics tested, including sex, height, weight, hand width, hand length, and grip power. CONCLUSION: The AM seems to be a more efficient face mask than the SM at delivering sufficient ventilation volumes. The performance of the AM did not seem to be associated with the physical characteristics of the rescuers, whereas that of the SM was affected by these factors. The SM may not be an appropriate face mask for performing one-person BVM ventilation during resuscitation for rescuers who are smaller in stature, have a smaller hand size, or have weaker grip power.
Authors: Catherine D Tobin; Tamas A Szabo; Bethany J Wolf; Kathryn H Bridges; Tod A Brown; Erick M Woltz; Robert D Warters Journal: Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care Date: 2018-10
Authors: Saqer M Althunayyan; Abdullah M Mubarak; Raied N Alotaibi; Musab Z Alharthi; Mohammed A Aljanoubi; Sulaiman Alshabanat; Abdulmajeed M Mobrad Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 3.397