These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of different flow-reducing bag-valve ventilation devices regarding respiratory mechanics and gastric inflation in an unprotected airway model.
    Author: Rabus FC, Luebbers HT, Graetz KW, Mutzbauer TS.
    Journal: Resuscitation; 2008 Aug; 78(2):224-9. PubMed ID: 18485560.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Gastric inflation (GI) is a significant issue when ventilation is performed on unprotected airways. DESIGN: Experimental analysis on the respiratory effects of hose extended bag-valve ventilation devices designed to reduce inspiratory pressure and flow. SETTING: Laboratory with lung/oesophageal sphincter simulator and pressure-flow-volume analyser. Lung compliance: 300ml/kPa, airway resistance: 0.5kPa/l/s. Lower oesophageal sphincter pressure (LOSP): 0.5kPa. INTERVENTIONS: Bag-valve ventilation of lung simulator. Twelve academic dental staff members used four devices: Ambu Mark III attached to either a reservoir bag (R) or a pressure relief valve (SV), SMART BAG (SB), and Easy Grip (EG) as control. RESULTS: After Bonferroni correction (p-level of significance 0.0083) for multiple comparisons, no evidence of difference between inspiratory tidal volumes (TVIN) administered by use of R (median 137ml) and SB (149ml) was found. Differences in TVIN were only detected between R and SV (188ml) (p=0.002). Only a trend towards TVIN differences between SB and R in comparison to EG (195ml) was found (p=0.009). Distributions of peak pressures differed when R (median 0.7kPa) and SV (1.0kPa) (p=0.006) or SB (0.7kPa) and SV (p=0.002) were compared. Peak inspiratory flow rates differed between EG (median 59l/min) and R (32l/min) as well as SB (42l/min) and between SB and SV (50l/min) (all with p=0.001). GI was lowest by use of R (median 103ml) compared to all other devices (EG: 518ml, SV: 394ml, SB: 271ml) (p=0.001). The areas under the pressure/flow over time curves were larger during SB compared to R ventilation. Mean airway pressures were significantly lower by use of R (0.1kPa) compared to SB (0.3kPa) (p<0.008). CONCLUSION: Lowering GI by pressure-flow reduction may result in lower TV depending on the device used. Lowest GI resulted from R ventilation. This may be explained by the specific pressure/time or flow/time patterns achieved by use of this device.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]