Ventilation feedback device for manual ventilation in simulated respiratory arrest: a crossover manikin study.
Bag-valve-mask
Cardiac arrest
Manual ventilation
Ventilation feedback device
Journal
Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
ISSN: 1757-7241
Titre abrégé: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101477511
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Oct 2019
22 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
08
07
2019
accepted:
30
09
2019
entrez:
24
10
2019
pubmed:
24
10
2019
medline:
30
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Studies have shown that providing adequate ventilation during CPR is essential. While hypoventilation is often feared by most caregivers on the scene, the most critical problem remains hyperventilation. We developed a Ventilation Feedback Device (VFD) for manual ventilation which monitors ventilatory parameters and provides direct feedback about ventilation quality to the rescuer. This study aims to compare the quality of conventional manual ventilation to ventilation with VFD on a simulated respiratory arrest patient. Forty healthcare providers were enrolled and instructed to ventilate a manikin simulating respiratory arrest. Participants were instructed to ventilate the manikin for 5 min with and without the VFD in random order. They were divided in two groups of 20 people, one group ventilating through a mask and the other through an endotracheal tube. Ventilation with the VFD improved from 15 to 90% (p < 0.001) with the mask and from 15 to 85% (p < 0.001) with the endotracheal tube (ETT) by significantly reducing the proportion of hyperventilation. The mean ventilation rates and tidal volumes were in the recommended ranges in respectively 100% with the mask and 97.5% of participants with the ETT when using the VFD. VFD improves the performance of manual ventilation by over 70% in different simulated scenarios. By providing the rescuer direct feedback and analysis of ventilatory parameters, this device can significantly improve ventilation while performing CPR and thus save lives.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Studies have shown that providing adequate ventilation during CPR is essential. While hypoventilation is often feared by most caregivers on the scene, the most critical problem remains hyperventilation. We developed a Ventilation Feedback Device (VFD) for manual ventilation which monitors ventilatory parameters and provides direct feedback about ventilation quality to the rescuer. This study aims to compare the quality of conventional manual ventilation to ventilation with VFD on a simulated respiratory arrest patient.
METHODS
METHODS
Forty healthcare providers were enrolled and instructed to ventilate a manikin simulating respiratory arrest. Participants were instructed to ventilate the manikin for 5 min with and without the VFD in random order. They were divided in two groups of 20 people, one group ventilating through a mask and the other through an endotracheal tube.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ventilation with the VFD improved from 15 to 90% (p < 0.001) with the mask and from 15 to 85% (p < 0.001) with the endotracheal tube (ETT) by significantly reducing the proportion of hyperventilation. The mean ventilation rates and tidal volumes were in the recommended ranges in respectively 100% with the mask and 97.5% of participants with the ETT when using the VFD.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
VFD improves the performance of manual ventilation by over 70% in different simulated scenarios. By providing the rescuer direct feedback and analysis of ventilatory parameters, this device can significantly improve ventilation while performing CPR and thus save lives.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31640797
doi: 10.1186/s13049-019-0674-7
pii: 10.1186/s13049-019-0674-7
pmc: PMC6805533
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
93Subventions
Organisme : Conseil régional de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
ID : 000
Organisme : BPI FRANCE
ID : 000
Organisme : BESANCON
ID : 000
Références
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2018 Jul 17;5(1):e000261
pubmed: 30116535
Resuscitation. 2007 Oct;75(1):53-9
pubmed: 17507138
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Jul;62(1):47-56.e1
pubmed: 23465553
Lancet. 2004 Jul 24-30;364(9431):313-5
pubmed: 15276374
Circulation. 2004 Apr 27;109(16):1960-5
pubmed: 15066941
Heart Lung Circ. 2019 Jan;28(1):6-14
pubmed: 30482683
BMC Emerg Med. 2009 Feb 20;9:4
pubmed: 19228432
Crit Care Med. 1979 Sep;7(9):368-73
pubmed: 467087
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016 Jan 15;120(2):196-203
pubmed: 26586906
J Pediatr. 2012 Mar;160(3):372-376.e1
pubmed: 22048042
Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2014 Jan;43(1):33-8
pubmed: 24557463
Circulation. 2006 Dec 19;114(25):2839-49
pubmed: 17179033
Resuscitation. 2016 Aug;105:165-72
pubmed: 27131844
Am J Emerg Med. 2012 Sep;30(7):1068-71
pubmed: 21908133
Resuscitation. 2016 Aug;105:188-95
pubmed: 27321577
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Jul;29(6):618-25
pubmed: 20825844
Resuscitation. 2011 Apr;82(4):378-85
pubmed: 21288624
Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:100-47
pubmed: 26477701
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:4521767
pubmed: 27294119
JAMA. 2018 Feb 27;319(8):779-787
pubmed: 29486039
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:376871
pubmed: 24724081
Respir Care. 2015 Dec;60(12):1834-40
pubmed: 26487749
Respir Care. 2014 May;59(5):735-42
pubmed: 24170912
Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:81-99
pubmed: 26477420
Crit Care Med. 2004 Sep;32(9 Suppl):S345-51
pubmed: 15508657
Ann Intensive Care. 2011 Jul 23;1(1):28
pubmed: 21906379
Resuscitation. 2007 Apr;73(1):82-5
pubmed: 17289248
Resuscitation. 2012 Apr;83(4):488-93
pubmed: 21958929