A comparison of two techniques for manual ventilation of the lungs by non-anaesthetists: the bag-valve-facemask and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) apparatus

In order to evaluate the possible role of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we compared its use by non-anaesthetists with the bag-valve-facemask technique of providing ventilation. A group of anaesthetic nurses and operating department practitioners were asked to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Anaesthesia 2001-08, Vol.56 (8), p.756-759
Hauptverfasser: Clayton, T J, Pittman, J A, Gabbott, D A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 759
container_issue 8
container_start_page 756
container_title Anaesthesia
container_volume 56
creator Clayton, T J
Pittman, J A
Gabbott, D A
description In order to evaluate the possible role of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we compared its use by non-anaesthetists with the bag-valve-facemask technique of providing ventilation. A group of anaesthetic nurses and operating department practitioners were asked to manually ventilate the lungs of 40 patients undergoing elective surgery following the induction of general anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Ventilation was first attempted using the bag-valve-facemask technique and then using the appropriate size cuffed oropharyngeal airway and self-inflating bag. Ventilation was clinically adequate in 32/40 (80%) patients using the bag-valve-facemask and in 38/40 (95%) patients using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Measured expired tidal volumes were greater using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway than with bag-valve-facemask ventilation in two-thirds of patients, despite a higher incidence of audible air leak. Successful ventilation was achieved using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway in seven of the eight patients in whom bag-valve-facemask ventilation was inadequate. The cuffed oropharyngeal airway may offer an effective method of providing ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation by non-anaesthetic hospital staff, particularly when attempted ventilation using a bag-valve-facemask technique is proving ineffective.
doi_str_mv 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.02090.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71071912</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71071912</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1038-e21bf1ea7f8002aba3072967dbc6d57ba0db7914709fe591c304f20283c402a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkcFu2zAMhoVhw5p2e4VBp2E92KMkJ7Z3C4J2HVCgO2xngZapxJkteZKdNu_TB52dBuuJgP6PpIiPMS4gFZCtvu5ToVbLREKWpRJApCChhPTpDVv8D96yBQCoRGZQXrDLGPcTKAtRvGcXQmSlkqpYsOc1N77rMTTRO-4tHx49H8jsXPN3pMitD7xDN2LLD-SGpsWhOYM74u3otpFXR-68S9Ahxel1aOIQv53yCrfJAdsDJRYNdRj_cHT1KTKjtVRzH3y_w3B0W5pWYBMe8ci_bB5-rq859tO_cBjjB_bOYhvp47lesd-3N782d8n9w_cfm_V9YgSoIiEpKisIc1sASKxQQS7LVV5XZlUv8wqhrvJSZDmUlpalMAoyK0EWymQTr9QV-_wytw9-vn7QXRMNtS068mPUuYBclEJOYPECmuBjDGR1H5puOkML0LMhvdezCD2L0LMhfTKkn6bWT-cdY9VR_dp4VqL-AR83j4M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71071912</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of two techniques for manual ventilation of the lungs by non-anaesthetists: the bag-valve-facemask and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) apparatus</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>Clayton, T J ; Pittman, J A ; Gabbott, D A</creator><creatorcontrib>Clayton, T J ; Pittman, J A ; Gabbott, D A</creatorcontrib><description>In order to evaluate the possible role of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we compared its use by non-anaesthetists with the bag-valve-facemask technique of providing ventilation. A group of anaesthetic nurses and operating department practitioners were asked to manually ventilate the lungs of 40 patients undergoing elective surgery following the induction of general anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Ventilation was first attempted using the bag-valve-facemask technique and then using the appropriate size cuffed oropharyngeal airway and self-inflating bag. Ventilation was clinically adequate in 32/40 (80%) patients using the bag-valve-facemask and in 38/40 (95%) patients using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Measured expired tidal volumes were greater using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway than with bag-valve-facemask ventilation in two-thirds of patients, despite a higher incidence of audible air leak. Successful ventilation was achieved using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway in seven of the eight patients in whom bag-valve-facemask ventilation was inadequate. The cuffed oropharyngeal airway may offer an effective method of providing ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation by non-anaesthetic hospital staff, particularly when attempted ventilation using a bag-valve-facemask technique is proving ineffective.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-2409</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2044</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.02090.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11493238</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - education ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - methods ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - standards ; Clinical Competence - standards ; Female ; Humans ; Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - standards ; Laryngeal Masks - standards ; Male ; Medical Staff, Hospital - standards ; Middle Aged ; Respiration, Artificial - instrumentation ; Respiration, Artificial - methods ; Respiration, Artificial - standards ; Tidal Volume - physiology ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Anaesthesia, 2001-08, Vol.56 (8), p.756-759</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1038-e21bf1ea7f8002aba3072967dbc6d57ba0db7914709fe591c304f20283c402a33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27911,27912</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11493238$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clayton, T J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittman, J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabbott, D A</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of two techniques for manual ventilation of the lungs by non-anaesthetists: the bag-valve-facemask and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) apparatus</title><title>Anaesthesia</title><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><description>In order to evaluate the possible role of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we compared its use by non-anaesthetists with the bag-valve-facemask technique of providing ventilation. A group of anaesthetic nurses and operating department practitioners were asked to manually ventilate the lungs of 40 patients undergoing elective surgery following the induction of general anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Ventilation was first attempted using the bag-valve-facemask technique and then using the appropriate size cuffed oropharyngeal airway and self-inflating bag. Ventilation was clinically adequate in 32/40 (80%) patients using the bag-valve-facemask and in 38/40 (95%) patients using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Measured expired tidal volumes were greater using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway than with bag-valve-facemask ventilation in two-thirds of patients, despite a higher incidence of audible air leak. Successful ventilation was achieved using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway in seven of the eight patients in whom bag-valve-facemask ventilation was inadequate. The cuffed oropharyngeal airway may offer an effective method of providing ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation by non-anaesthetic hospital staff, particularly when attempted ventilation using a bag-valve-facemask technique is proving ineffective.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - education</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - methods</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - standards</subject><subject>Clinical Competence - standards</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - standards</subject><subject>Laryngeal Masks - standards</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Staff, Hospital - standards</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Respiration, Artificial - instrumentation</subject><subject>Respiration, Artificial - methods</subject><subject>Respiration, Artificial - standards</subject><subject>Tidal Volume - physiology</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0003-2409</issn><issn>1365-2044</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkcFu2zAMhoVhw5p2e4VBp2E92KMkJ7Z3C4J2HVCgO2xngZapxJkteZKdNu_TB52dBuuJgP6PpIiPMS4gFZCtvu5ToVbLREKWpRJApCChhPTpDVv8D96yBQCoRGZQXrDLGPcTKAtRvGcXQmSlkqpYsOc1N77rMTTRO-4tHx49H8jsXPN3pMitD7xDN2LLD-SGpsWhOYM74u3otpFXR-68S9Ahxel1aOIQv53yCrfJAdsDJRYNdRj_cHT1KTKjtVRzH3y_w3B0W5pWYBMe8ci_bB5-rq859tO_cBjjB_bOYhvp47lesd-3N782d8n9w_cfm_V9YgSoIiEpKisIc1sASKxQQS7LVV5XZlUv8wqhrvJSZDmUlpalMAoyK0EWymQTr9QV-_wytw9-vn7QXRMNtS068mPUuYBclEJOYPECmuBjDGR1H5puOkML0LMhvdezCD2L0LMhfTKkn6bWT-cdY9VR_dp4VqL-AR83j4M</recordid><startdate>200108</startdate><enddate>200108</enddate><creator>Clayton, T J</creator><creator>Pittman, J A</creator><creator>Gabbott, D A</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200108</creationdate><title>A comparison of two techniques for manual ventilation of the lungs by non-anaesthetists: the bag-valve-facemask and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) apparatus</title><author>Clayton, T J ; Pittman, J A ; Gabbott, D A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1038-e21bf1ea7f8002aba3072967dbc6d57ba0db7914709fe591c304f20283c402a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - education</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - methods</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - standards</topic><topic>Clinical Competence - standards</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - standards</topic><topic>Laryngeal Masks - standards</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Staff, Hospital - standards</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Respiration, Artificial - instrumentation</topic><topic>Respiration, Artificial - methods</topic><topic>Respiration, Artificial - standards</topic><topic>Tidal Volume - physiology</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clayton, T J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittman, J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabbott, D A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clayton, T J</au><au>Pittman, J A</au><au>Gabbott, D A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of two techniques for manual ventilation of the lungs by non-anaesthetists: the bag-valve-facemask and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) apparatus</atitle><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><date>2001-08</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>756</spage><epage>759</epage><pages>756-759</pages><issn>0003-2409</issn><eissn>1365-2044</eissn><abstract>In order to evaluate the possible role of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we compared its use by non-anaesthetists with the bag-valve-facemask technique of providing ventilation. A group of anaesthetic nurses and operating department practitioners were asked to manually ventilate the lungs of 40 patients undergoing elective surgery following the induction of general anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Ventilation was first attempted using the bag-valve-facemask technique and then using the appropriate size cuffed oropharyngeal airway and self-inflating bag. Ventilation was clinically adequate in 32/40 (80%) patients using the bag-valve-facemask and in 38/40 (95%) patients using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Measured expired tidal volumes were greater using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway than with bag-valve-facemask ventilation in two-thirds of patients, despite a higher incidence of audible air leak. Successful ventilation was achieved using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway in seven of the eight patients in whom bag-valve-facemask ventilation was inadequate. The cuffed oropharyngeal airway may offer an effective method of providing ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation by non-anaesthetic hospital staff, particularly when attempted ventilation using a bag-valve-facemask technique is proving ineffective.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>11493238</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.02090.x</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-2409
ispartof Anaesthesia, 2001-08, Vol.56 (8), p.756-759
issn 0003-2409
1365-2044
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71071912
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - education
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - methods
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - standards
Clinical Competence - standards
Female
Humans
Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation
Intubation, Intratracheal - standards
Laryngeal Masks - standards
Male
Medical Staff, Hospital - standards
Middle Aged
Respiration, Artificial - instrumentation
Respiration, Artificial - methods
Respiration, Artificial - standards
Tidal Volume - physiology
Treatment Outcome
title A comparison of two techniques for manual ventilation of the lungs by non-anaesthetists: the bag-valve-facemask and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) apparatus
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T13%3A25%3A37IST&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=A%20comparison%20of%20two%20techniques%20for%20manual%20ventilation%20of%20the%20lungs%20by%20non-anaesthetists:%20the%20bag-valve-facemask%20and%20the%20cuffed%20oropharyngeal%20airway%20(COPA)%20apparatus&rft.jtitle=Anaesthesia&rft.au=Clayton,%20T%20J&rft.date=2001-08&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=756&rft.epage=759&rft.pages=756-759&rft.issn=0003-2409&rft.eissn=1365-2044&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.02090.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71071912%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=71071912&rft_id=info:pmid/11493238&rfr_iscdi=true