|
Comparison of Ventilatory Efficacy of the Standard Bag-Valve Mask and the SMARTBAG©
Jonnathan M. Busko, Michael Dailey, Fred Goodwin, Carolinas Medical Center
Presented at the Moderated Poster Abstract Session A, NAEMSP Conference, Tucson , Arizona , January 8 – 10 2004
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004 Jan-Feb;8(1):88
This study was conducted at a regional EMS conference. Participants were randomized to order of device utilization. Providers were told to ventilate a Mini-Ventilation Analyzer© (Otwo Systems Inc) with each device for 1 minute as they would ventilate an 85 kg patient. Mask leak variability was controlled for by directly connecting the devices to the Mini-Ventilation Analyzer© . Esophageal opening pressure was set at 18 cm H2O, lung compliance at 0.03 L/cm H2O, and airway resistance per Michigan Instruments “healthy adult” parameters. Breaths per minute, mean tidal volume, minute ventilation, peak airway pressure, mean gastric inflation volume, and mean I:E ratio were measured.
Mean breaths per minute were 17.10 with the BVM and 14.45 for the SMART BAG© . The mean tidal volume was 479.03 ml with the BVM and 536.78 ml with the SMART BAG© . The mean minute ventilation was 8034.83 ml with the BVM and 7484.63 ml with the SMART BAG© . Mean gastric inflation volume with the BVM was 1725.36 ml versus 0 ml for the SMART BAG© . Peak airway pressures were 16.30 cm H 2 O with the BVM and 12.23 cm H2O with the SMART BAG© . The I:E ratio for the BVM was 1:1.21 versus 1:1.40 with the SMART BAG© .
Using the SMART BAG© increased participants' ability to perform BVM ventilation to AHA standards. For all parameters, the SMART BAG© performed significantly better than the standard bag-valve device.
|
