Use of a novel pedal‐operated compressor is non‐inferior to the use of a standard hand‐compressed bag‐valve mask
Background The standard bag‐valve mask (BVM) used universally requires that a single healthcare practitioner affix the mask to the face with 1 hand while compressing a self‐inflating bag with the second hand. Studies have demonstrated that creating a 2‐handed seal (with 2 healthcare practitioners) i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open 2022-02, Vol.3 (1), p.e12668-n/a, Article e12668 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
The standard bag‐valve mask (BVM) used universally requires that a single healthcare practitioner affix the mask to the face with 1 hand while compressing a self‐inflating bag with the second hand. Studies have demonstrated that creating a 2‐handed seal (with 2 healthcare practitioners) is superior. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of a novel single‐practitioner BVM device that uses a foot pedal as the bag compressor, allowing both hands to be available for the seal to facilitate delivery of appropriate tidal volumes during single‐practitioner resuscitation.
Methods
This was a prospective, randomized, cross‐over study. Participants with various BVM ventilation experience performed 2 minutes of metronome‐guided BVM ventilation using a standard BVM and the pedal‐operated compressor on a high‐fidelity simulation mannequin. Analysis examining differences in mean tidal volume delivered was conducted using a regression model that adjusted for covariates. A secondary analysis using a series of Wilcoxon tests was conducted to compare differences in the additional out‐of‐range sensed breaths metrics to compare differences by prior BVM ventilation experience.
Results
A total of 58 subjects participated. The pedal‐operated compressor unadjusted mean tidal volume delivered was 446.5 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 425.9–467.1) compared with 340.6 mL (95% CI, 312.2–369.0) by standard BVM (mean change, 105.9 mL [95% CI, 71.2–140.6]; P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2688-1152 2688-1152 |
DOI: | 10.1002/emp2.12668 |