Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: The standard bag-valve mask (BVM) used universally requires that a single healthcare practitioner affix the mask to the face with 1 hand while compressing a self-inflating bag with the second hand. Studies have demonstrated that creating a 2-handed seal (with 2 healthcare practitioners) is superior. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of a novel single-practitioner BVM device that uses a foot pedal as the bag compressor, allowing both hands to be available for the seal to facilitate delivery of appropriate tidal volumes during single-practitioner resuscitation.
Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over study. Participants with various BVM ventilation experience performed 2 minutes of metronome-guided BVM ventilation using a standard BVM and the pedal-operated compressor on a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Analysis examining differences in mean tidal volume delivered was conducted using a regression model that adjusted for covariates. A secondary analysis using a series of Wilcoxon tests was conducted to compare differences in the additional out-of-range sensed breaths metrics to compare differences by prior BVM ventilation experience.
Results: A total of 58 subjects participated. The pedal-operated compressor unadjusted mean tidal volume delivered was 446.5 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 425.9-467.1) compared with 340.6 mL (95% CI, 312.2-369.0) by standard BVM (mean change, 105.9 mL [95% CI, 71.2-140.6]; < .001). When modeling a generalized estimation equation regression model, standard BVM ventilation provided a mean difference of 105.9 mL less than pedal-operated compressor ventilation after adjusting for covariates ( = 0.01). For the secondary outcome, the pedal-operated compressor did have a significantly lower median number of out-of-range breaths (median, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 1-11.5) compared with the standard device (median, 13.5; IQR, 6-19; < 0.001).
Conclusions: Use of a novel pedal-operated compressor may allow a single healthcare practitioner, regardless of prior experience, to deliver consistent, appropriate tidal volumes with more ease compared with the standard BVM during manual respiratory resuscitation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828681 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12668 | DOI Listing |