Bag valve resuscitator versus Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation: A bench top study
Manual ventilation is life saving in critically ill patients. The lack of airway pressure monitoring makes it operator and device dependent. In this bench top-study, we compared a self- inflating bag valve resuscitator and a Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation performed by critical care nur...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Intensive & critical care nursing 2022-06, Vol.70, p.103186-103186, Article 103186 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 103186 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 103186 |
| container_title | Intensive & critical care nursing |
| container_volume | 70 |
| creator | Giani, Marco Lucchini, Alberto Moretto, Lorenza Di Pierro, Michela Lo Re, Fabio Mancini, Paolo Giobbi Palano, Salvatore Foti, Giuseppe Bellani, Giacomo Bronco, Alfio |
| description | Manual ventilation is life saving in critically ill patients. The lack of airway pressure monitoring makes it operator and device dependent. In this bench top-study, we compared a self- inflating bag valve resuscitator and a Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation performed by critical care nurses under normal and pathologic conditions, with a special focus on delivered positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP).
Three different respiratory patterns (normal, restrictive and obstructive) were reproduced by a breathing simulator. Twenty nurses provided manual ventilation with a specific ventilatory pattern. Airway pressure, tidal volume and respiratory rate were recorded. Absolute value, error (difference between recorded and target values) and variability of PEEP were analysed.
3820 breathing traces were analysed. PEEP error was significantly higher with Mapelson C (43.3% vs 5.9% respectively, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103186 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2610079542</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0964339721001750</els_id><sourcerecordid>2659628592</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-94dcc199055211b0f95c39a2ebc9967f218c381e8ea819a29f5e62306d7909903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPGzEURi1UBOHxB1hUlrrpZoIfY2eMuqERLwnEBpbIcjx3qKOJnfoRiX-PowCLLrq6ulfn-3R1EDqjZEoJlefLqbPWTxlhtB447eQemlDBWdMSLr-hCVGybThXs0N0lNKSEKJ4Jw7QIW8V4a2UE_Ty27zijRk3gCOkkqzLJoeINxDrhh_MeoQUPJ5j66ItLuO-ROdf8cr4YsbK-exGk13wF_gSL8DbPziHNU659G8naH8wY4LTj3mMnq-vnua3zf3jzd388r6xnIvcqLa3lipFhGCULsighOXKMFhYpeRsYLSzvKPQgelovatBgGScyH6mSI3xY_Rz17uO4W-BlPXKJQvjaDyEkjSTlJCZEi2r6I9_0GUo0dfvKiWUZJ1QW4rtKBtDShEGvY5uZeKbpkRv5eul3srXW_l6J7-Gvn9Ul8UK-q_Ip-0K_NoBUF1sHERdfVdj0LsINus-uP_1vwPllpP_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2659628592</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bag valve resuscitator versus Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation: A bench top study</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Giani, Marco ; Lucchini, Alberto ; Moretto, Lorenza ; Di Pierro, Michela ; Lo Re, Fabio ; Mancini, Paolo Giobbi ; Palano, Salvatore ; Foti, Giuseppe ; Bellani, Giacomo ; Bronco, Alfio</creator><creatorcontrib>Giani, Marco ; Lucchini, Alberto ; Moretto, Lorenza ; Di Pierro, Michela ; Lo Re, Fabio ; Mancini, Paolo Giobbi ; Palano, Salvatore ; Foti, Giuseppe ; Bellani, Giacomo ; Bronco, Alfio</creatorcontrib><description>Manual ventilation is life saving in critically ill patients. The lack of airway pressure monitoring makes it operator and device dependent. In this bench top-study, we compared a self- inflating bag valve resuscitator and a Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation performed by critical care nurses under normal and pathologic conditions, with a special focus on delivered positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP).
Three different respiratory patterns (normal, restrictive and obstructive) were reproduced by a breathing simulator. Twenty nurses provided manual ventilation with a specific ventilatory pattern. Airway pressure, tidal volume and respiratory rate were recorded. Absolute value, error (difference between recorded and target values) and variability of PEEP were analysed.
3820 breathing traces were analysed. PEEP error was significantly higher with Mapelson C (43.3% vs 5.9% respectively, p < 0.001). This finding was confirmed regardless of operator skill and scenario. PEEP was more variable with Mapelson C (p < 0.05 in all scenarios). Ventilation of obstructive patients with Mapelson C resulted in higher PEEP levels compared to the reference value. Conversely, in the restrictive setting, PEEP was lower. Difference between PEEP and the minimum pressure recorded during the respiratory cycle was significantly higher with Mapelson C (p < 0.05).
Manual ventilation with a Mapleson C circuit delivered a less accurate and less stable PEEP level compared to a self-inflating bag valve resuscitator.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0964-3397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-4036</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103186</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34903466</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Critical care ; Gas flow ; Manual ventilation ; Mapleson C circuit ; Medical equipment ; Nurses ; Nursing care ; Patients ; PEEP ; Respiratory system ; Self-inflating bag valve resuscitator ; Simulation ; Software ; Ventilation ; Ventilators</subject><ispartof>Intensive & critical care nursing, 2022-06, Vol.70, p.103186-103186, Article 103186</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2021. Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-94dcc199055211b0f95c39a2ebc9967f218c381e8ea819a29f5e62306d7909903</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2659628592?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,12846,27924,27925,30999,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34903466$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Giani, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lucchini, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moretto, Lorenza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Pierro, Michela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo Re, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mancini, Paolo Giobbi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palano, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foti, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellani, Giacomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronco, Alfio</creatorcontrib><title>Bag valve resuscitator versus Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation: A bench top study</title><title>Intensive & critical care nursing</title><addtitle>Intensive Crit Care Nurs</addtitle><description>Manual ventilation is life saving in critically ill patients. The lack of airway pressure monitoring makes it operator and device dependent. In this bench top-study, we compared a self- inflating bag valve resuscitator and a Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation performed by critical care nurses under normal and pathologic conditions, with a special focus on delivered positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP).
Three different respiratory patterns (normal, restrictive and obstructive) were reproduced by a breathing simulator. Twenty nurses provided manual ventilation with a specific ventilatory pattern. Airway pressure, tidal volume and respiratory rate were recorded. Absolute value, error (difference between recorded and target values) and variability of PEEP were analysed.
3820 breathing traces were analysed. PEEP error was significantly higher with Mapelson C (43.3% vs 5.9% respectively, p < 0.001). This finding was confirmed regardless of operator skill and scenario. PEEP was more variable with Mapelson C (p < 0.05 in all scenarios). Ventilation of obstructive patients with Mapelson C resulted in higher PEEP levels compared to the reference value. Conversely, in the restrictive setting, PEEP was lower. Difference between PEEP and the minimum pressure recorded during the respiratory cycle was significantly higher with Mapelson C (p < 0.05).
Manual ventilation with a Mapleson C circuit delivered a less accurate and less stable PEEP level compared to a self-inflating bag valve resuscitator.</description><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Gas flow</subject><subject>Manual ventilation</subject><subject>Mapleson C circuit</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Nursing care</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>PEEP</subject><subject>Respiratory system</subject><subject>Self-inflating bag valve resuscitator</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Ventilation</subject><subject>Ventilators</subject><issn>0964-3397</issn><issn>1532-4036</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtPGzEURi1UBOHxB1hUlrrpZoIfY2eMuqERLwnEBpbIcjx3qKOJnfoRiX-PowCLLrq6ulfn-3R1EDqjZEoJlefLqbPWTxlhtB447eQemlDBWdMSLr-hCVGybThXs0N0lNKSEKJ4Jw7QIW8V4a2UE_Ty27zijRk3gCOkkqzLJoeINxDrhh_MeoQUPJ5j66ItLuO-ROdf8cr4YsbK-exGk13wF_gSL8DbPziHNU659G8naH8wY4LTj3mMnq-vnua3zf3jzd388r6xnIvcqLa3lipFhGCULsighOXKMFhYpeRsYLSzvKPQgelovatBgGScyH6mSI3xY_Rz17uO4W-BlPXKJQvjaDyEkjSTlJCZEi2r6I9_0GUo0dfvKiWUZJ1QW4rtKBtDShEGvY5uZeKbpkRv5eul3srXW_l6J7-Gvn9Ul8UK-q_Ip-0K_NoBUF1sHERdfVdj0LsINus-uP_1vwPllpP_</recordid><startdate>202206</startdate><enddate>202206</enddate><creator>Giani, Marco</creator><creator>Lucchini, Alberto</creator><creator>Moretto, Lorenza</creator><creator>Di Pierro, Michela</creator><creator>Lo Re, Fabio</creator><creator>Mancini, Paolo Giobbi</creator><creator>Palano, Salvatore</creator><creator>Foti, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Bellani, Giacomo</creator><creator>Bronco, Alfio</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202206</creationdate><title>Bag valve resuscitator versus Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation: A bench top study</title><author>Giani, Marco ; Lucchini, Alberto ; Moretto, Lorenza ; Di Pierro, Michela ; Lo Re, Fabio ; Mancini, Paolo Giobbi ; Palano, Salvatore ; Foti, Giuseppe ; Bellani, Giacomo ; Bronco, Alfio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-94dcc199055211b0f95c39a2ebc9967f218c381e8ea819a29f5e62306d7909903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Gas flow</topic><topic>Manual ventilation</topic><topic>Mapleson C circuit</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Nursing care</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>PEEP</topic><topic>Respiratory system</topic><topic>Self-inflating bag valve resuscitator</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Ventilation</topic><topic>Ventilators</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Giani, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lucchini, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moretto, Lorenza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Pierro, Michela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo Re, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mancini, Paolo Giobbi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palano, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foti, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellani, Giacomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronco, Alfio</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Intensive & critical care nursing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Giani, Marco</au><au>Lucchini, Alberto</au><au>Moretto, Lorenza</au><au>Di Pierro, Michela</au><au>Lo Re, Fabio</au><au>Mancini, Paolo Giobbi</au><au>Palano, Salvatore</au><au>Foti, Giuseppe</au><au>Bellani, Giacomo</au><au>Bronco, Alfio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bag valve resuscitator versus Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation: A bench top study</atitle><jtitle>Intensive & critical care nursing</jtitle><addtitle>Intensive Crit Care Nurs</addtitle><date>2022-06</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>70</volume><spage>103186</spage><epage>103186</epage><pages>103186-103186</pages><artnum>103186</artnum><issn>0964-3397</issn><eissn>1532-4036</eissn><abstract>Manual ventilation is life saving in critically ill patients. The lack of airway pressure monitoring makes it operator and device dependent. In this bench top-study, we compared a self- inflating bag valve resuscitator and a Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation performed by critical care nurses under normal and pathologic conditions, with a special focus on delivered positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP).
Three different respiratory patterns (normal, restrictive and obstructive) were reproduced by a breathing simulator. Twenty nurses provided manual ventilation with a specific ventilatory pattern. Airway pressure, tidal volume and respiratory rate were recorded. Absolute value, error (difference between recorded and target values) and variability of PEEP were analysed.
3820 breathing traces were analysed. PEEP error was significantly higher with Mapelson C (43.3% vs 5.9% respectively, p < 0.001). This finding was confirmed regardless of operator skill and scenario. PEEP was more variable with Mapelson C (p < 0.05 in all scenarios). Ventilation of obstructive patients with Mapelson C resulted in higher PEEP levels compared to the reference value. Conversely, in the restrictive setting, PEEP was lower. Difference between PEEP and the minimum pressure recorded during the respiratory cycle was significantly higher with Mapelson C (p < 0.05).
Manual ventilation with a Mapleson C circuit delivered a less accurate and less stable PEEP level compared to a self-inflating bag valve resuscitator.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>34903466</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103186</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0964-3397 |
| ispartof | Intensive & critical care nursing, 2022-06, Vol.70, p.103186-103186, Article 103186 |
| issn | 0964-3397 1532-4036 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2610079542 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Critical care Gas flow Manual ventilation Mapleson C circuit Medical equipment Nurses Nursing care Patients PEEP Respiratory system Self-inflating bag valve resuscitator Simulation Software Ventilation Ventilators |
| title | Bag valve resuscitator versus Mapleson C circuit during manual ventilation: A bench top study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T06%3A04%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bag%20valve%20resuscitator%20versus%20Mapleson%20C%20circuit%20during%20manual%20ventilation:%20A%20bench%20top%20study&rft.jtitle=Intensive%20&%20critical%20care%20nursing&rft.au=Giani,%20Marco&rft.date=2022-06&rft.volume=70&rft.spage=103186&rft.epage=103186&rft.pages=103186-103186&rft.artnum=103186&rft.issn=0964-3397&rft.eissn=1532-4036&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103186&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2659628592%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2659628592&rft_id=info:pmid/34903466&rft_els_id=S0964339721001750&rfr_iscdi=true |