SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Adelborg K, Bjørnshave K, Mortensen MB, Espeseth E, Wolff A, Løfgren B. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(7): 712-716.

Affiliation

Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/anae.12669

PMID

24773395

Abstract

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.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print