A randomised crossover comparison of mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation by surf lifeguards in a manikin

Summary Thirty surf lifeguards (mean (SD) age: 25.1 (4.8) years; 21 male, 9 female) were randomly assigned to perform 2 × 3 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a manikin using mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (AMBU® LifeKey) and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (Laerdal Pocket Mask™). Interrupti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAnaesthesia Vol. 69; no. 7; pp. 712 - 716
Main Authors Adelborg, K., Bjørnshave, K., Mortensen, M. B., Espeseth, E., Wolff, A., Løfgren, B.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.07.2014
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Summary Thirty surf lifeguards (mean (SD) age: 25.1 (4.8) years; 21 male, 9 female) were randomly assigned to perform 2 × 3 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a manikin using mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (AMBU® LifeKey) and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (Laerdal Pocket Mask™). Interruptions in chest compressions, effective ventilation (visible chest rise) ratio, tidal volume and inspiratory time were recorded. Interruptions in chest compressions per cycle were increased with mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (mean (SD) 8.6 (1.7) s) compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (6.9 (1.2) s, p < 0.0001). The proportion of effective ventilations was less using mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (199/242 (82%)) compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (239/240 (100%), p = 0.0002). Tidal volume was lower using mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (mean (SD) 0.36 (0.20) l) compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (0.45 (0.20) l, p = 0.006). No differences in inspiratory times were observed between mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation. In conclusion, mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation increases interruptions in chest compressions, reduces the proportion of effective ventilations and decreases delivered tidal volumes compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation.
Bibliography:http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com
You can respond to this article at
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0003-2409
1365-2044
DOI:10.1111/anae.12669