Monica Thallinger1, Hege Langli Ersdal2, Crescent Ombay3, Joar Eilevstjønn4, Ketil Størdal5. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Institute for Experimental Medical Research, University of Oslo, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway. 3. Principal Tutor at Haydom School of Nursing, Haydom, Manyara, Tanzania. 4. Laerdal Medical AS, Strategic Research, Stavanger, Norway. 5. Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare ventilation properties and user preference of a new upright neonatal resuscitator developed for easier cleaning, reduced complexity, and possibly improved ventilation properties, with the standard Laerdal neonatal resuscitator. DESIGN:Eighty-seven Tanzanian and Norwegian nursing and medical students without prior knowledge of newborn resuscitation were briefly trained in bag-mask ventilation. The two resuscitators were used in random order on a manikin connected to a test lung with normal or low lung compliance. Data were collected with the Laerdal Newborn Resuscitation Monitor. The students graded mask seal and ease of air entry on a four-point scale ranging from 1 ('difficult') to 4 ('easy') and stated which device they preferred. (Equipment from Laerdal Global Health and Laerdal Medical). RESULTS: For upright versus standard resuscitator and normal lung compliance, mean expiratory lung volume was 15.5 mL vs 13.9 mL (p=0.001), mean mask leakage 48% vs 58% (p<0.001), and mean airway pressure 20 cm H2O vs 19 cm H2O (p=0.003), respectively. For low lung compliance, mean expiratory lung volume was 8.6 mL vs 8.1 mL (p=0.045), mean mask leakage 53% vs 62% (p<0.001), and mean airway pressure21 cm H2O vs 20 cm H2O (p=0.004) for upright versus standard. The upright resuscitator was preferred by 82% and 68% of students during ventilation with normal and low lung compliance, respectively (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Expiratory volumes were higher, mask leakage lower, and mean airway pressure slightly higher with upright versus standard resuscitator when ventilating a manikin. The majority of students preferred the upright resuscitator. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare ventilation properties and user preference of a new upright neonatal resuscitator developed for easier cleaning, reduced complexity, and possibly improved ventilation properties, with the standard Laerdal neonatal resuscitator. DESIGN: Eighty-seven Tanzanian and Norwegian nursing and medical students without prior knowledge of newborn resuscitation were briefly trained in bag-mask ventilation. The two resuscitators were used in random order on a manikin connected to a test lung with normal or low lung compliance. Data were collected with the Laerdal Newborn Resuscitation Monitor. The students graded mask seal and ease of air entry on a four-point scale ranging from 1 ('difficult') to 4 ('easy') and stated which device they preferred. (Equipment from Laerdal Global Health and Laerdal Medical). RESULTS: For upright versus standard resuscitator and normal lung compliance, mean expiratory lung volume was 15.5 mL vs 13.9 mL (p=0.001), mean mask leakage 48% vs 58% (p<0.001), and mean airway pressure 20 cm H2O vs 19 cm H2O (p=0.003), respectively. For low lung compliance, mean expiratory lung volume was 8.6 mL vs 8.1 mL (p=0.045), mean mask leakage 53% vs 62% (p<0.001), and mean airway pressure 21 cm H2O vs 20 cm H2O (p=0.004) for upright versus standard. The upright resuscitator was preferred by 82% and 68% of students during ventilation with normal and low lung compliance, respectively (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Expiratory volumes were higher, mask leakage lower, and mean airway pressure slightly higher with upright versus standard resuscitator when ventilating a manikin. The majority of students preferred the upright resuscitator. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Julia C Hartung; Silke Wilitzki; Marta Thio-Lluch; Arjan B te Pas; Gerd Schmalisch; Charles C Roehr Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Robert Moshiro; Jeffrey M Perlman; Hussein Kidanto; Jan Terje Kvaløy; Paschal Mdoe; Hege L Ersdal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeroen J van Vonderen; Henriëtte A van Zanten; Kim Schilleman; Stuart B Hooper; Marcus J Kitchen; Ruben S G M Witlox; Arjan B Te Pas Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: David Zweiker; Hanna Schwaberger; Berndt Urlesberger; Lukas P Mileder; Nariae Baik-Schneditz; Gerhard Pichler; Georg M Schmölzer; Bernhard Schwaberger Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2018-09-21