Garcia-Guasch R, Ferrà M, Benito P, Oltra J, Roca J
Anaesthesiology Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Carretera del Canyet s/n, 08916 Badalona, Spain.
Resuscitation. 2001 Aug;50(2):173-7. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(01)00339-2.
The aim of this study was to compare ease of ventilation of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation manikin using a cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA), a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and a face mask, by two groups of people with different levels of earlier experience in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Enrolled were, 108 people identified as experienced (54), or inexperienced (54), in CPR. Training equipment included a manikin, a COPA (n=10), an LMA (n=4), a face mask (n=4) and self-inflating bag-valve device. The same investigator explained the theoretical use and practice of the three techniques with the subjects in groups of three. The variables recorded were the number of attempts needed to achieve correct placement (and a tidal volume of 200 ml, was achieved), the insertion time for the COPA and the LMA, and the average time taken to achieve the first ten correct ventilations. The face mask and LMA required fewer attempts for correct placement than did the COPA. The LMA also took less time to insert than the COPA. The face mask required a significantly shorter total time with all attempts and the mean time of placement and time to achieve ten correct ventilations was shorter than with either the LMA or the COPA (P=0.0001). We conclude that the face mask offers an easier and quicker way to provide ventilation for CPR manikins than does the COPA or the LMA. Earlier experience affects the ease of insertion of the LMA and the total time needed to achieve effective ventilation.
本研究的目的是比较两组具有不同心肺复苏(CPR)前期经验水平的人员,使用带套囊口咽气道(COPA)、喉罩气道(LMA)和面罩对心肺复苏模拟人进行通气的难易程度。共招募了108名被认定为有CPR经验(54人)或无经验(54人)的人员。训练设备包括一个模拟人、10个COPA、4个LMA、4个面罩和自动充气式球囊面罩装置。同一名研究者向受试者三人一组讲解了这三种技术的理论用途和操作方法。记录的变量包括实现正确放置(并达到200 ml潮气量)所需的尝试次数、COPA和LMA的插入时间,以及实现前十次正确通气所需的平均时间。与COPA相比,面罩和LMA正确放置所需的尝试次数更少。LMA的插入时间也比COPA短。面罩在所有尝试中所需的总时间明显更短,且放置平均时间和实现十次正确通气的时间比LMA或COPA都短(P = 0.0001)。我们得出结论,与COPA或LMA相比,面罩为心肺复苏模拟人提供通气的方法更简便快捷。前期经验会影响LMA的插入难易程度以及实现有效通气所需的总时间。