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 manually triggered ventilation and bag-valve-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a manikin model.
    Author: Bergrath S, Rossaint R, Biermann H, Skorning M, Beckers SK, Rörtgen D, Brokmann JCh, Flege C, Fitzner C, Czaplik M.
    Journal: Resuscitation; 2012 Apr; 83(4):488-93. PubMed ID: 21958929.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: To compare a novel, pressure-limited, flow adaptive ventilator that enables manual triggering of ventilations (MEDUMAT Easy CPR, Weinmann, Germany) with a bag-valve-mask (BVM) device during simulated cardiac arrest. METHODS: Overall 74 third-year medical students received brief video instructions (BVM: 57s, ventilator: 126s), standardised theoretical instructions and practical training for both devices. Four days later, the students were randomised into 37 two-rescuer teams and were asked to perform 8min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on a manikin using either the ventilator or the BVM (randomisation list). Applied tidal volumes (V(T)), inspiratory times and hands-off times were recorded. Maximum airway pressures (P(max)) were measured with a sensor connected to the artificial lung. Questionnaires concerning levels of fatigue, stress and handling were evaluated. V(T), pressures and hands-off times were compared using t-tests, questionnaire data were analysed using the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: BVM vs. ventilator (mean±SD): the mean V(T) (408±164ml vs. 315±165ml, p=0.10) and the maximum V(T) did not differ, but the number of recorded V(T)<200ml differed (8.1±11.3 vs. 17.0±14.4 ventilations, p=0.04). P(max) did not differ, but inspiratory times (0.80±0.23s vs. 1.39±0.31s, p<0.001) and total hands-off times (133.5±17.8s vs. 162.0±11.1s, p<0.001) did. The estimated levels of fatigue and stress were comparable; however, the BVM was rated to be easier to use (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: For the user group investigated here, this ventilator exhibits no advantages in the setting of simulated CPR and carries a risk of prolonged no-flow time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]