von Goedecke Achim, Wagner-Berger Horst G, Stadlbauer Karl H, Krismer Anette C, Jakubaszko Juliusz, Bratschke Christian, Wenzel Volker, Keller Christian
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Resuscitation. 2004 Nov;63(2):131-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.04.012.
Reducing inspiratory flow rate and peak airway pressure may be important in order to minimise the risk of stomach inflation when ventilating an unprotected airway with positive pressure ventilation. This study was designed to yield enough power to determine whether employing an inspiratory gas flow limiting bag-valve device (SMART BAG, O-Two Medical Technologies Inc., Ontario, Canada) would also decrease the likelihood of stomach inflation in an established bench model of a simulated unintubated respiratory arrest patient. The bench model consists of a training lung (lung compliance, 50 ml/cm H2O; airway resistance, 4 cm H2O/l/s) and a valve simulating lower oesophageal sphincter opening at a pressure of 19 cm H(2)O. One hundred and ninety-one emergency medicine physicians were requested to ventilate the manikin utilising a standard single-person technique for 1 min (respiratory rate, 12/min; Vt, 500 ml) with both a standard adult bag-valve-mask and the SMART BAG. The volunteers were blinded to the experimental design of the model until completion of the experimental protocol. The SMART BAG versus standard bag-valve-mask resulted in significantly (P < 0.001) lower (mean +/- S.D.) mean airway pressure (14 +/- 2 cm H2O versus 16 +/- 3 cm H2O), respiratory rates (13 +/- 3 breaths per min versus 14 +/- 4 breaths per min), incidence of stomach inflation (4.2% versus 38.7%) and median stomach inflation volumes (351 [range, 18-1211 ml] versus 1426 [20-5882 ml]); lung tidal volumes (538 +/- 97 ml versus 533 +/- 97 ml) were comparable. Inspiratory to expiratory ratios were significantly (P < 0.001) increased (1.7 +/- 0.5 versus 1.5 +/- 0.6). In conclusion, the SMART BAG reduced inspiratory flow, mean airway pressure and both the incidence and actual volume of stomach inflation compared with a standard bag-valve-mask device while maintaining delivered lung tidal volumes and increasing the inspiratory to expiratory ratio.
在对未受保护气道进行正压通气时,降低吸气流量和气道峰值压力对于将胃充气风险降至最低可能很重要。本研究旨在获得足够的效能,以确定使用吸气气流限制型袋阀装置(SMART BAG,O-Two医疗技术公司,加拿大安大略省)是否也会降低模拟未插管呼吸骤停患者的既定实验台模型中胃充气的可能性。该实验台模型由一个训练肺(肺顺应性,50 ml/cm H₂O;气道阻力,4 cm H₂O/l/s)和一个模拟食管下括约肌在19 cm H₂O压力下开放的瓣膜组成。要求191名急诊医学医生使用标准单人技术,分别使用标准成人袋阀面罩和SMART BAG对人体模型进行1分钟的通气(呼吸频率,12次/分钟;潮气量,500 ml)。在完成实验方案之前,志愿者对模型的实验设计不知情。与标准袋阀面罩相比,SMART BAG导致平均气道压力显著降低(P < 0.001)(均值±标准差)(14 ± 2 cm H₂O对16 ± 3 cm H₂O)、呼吸频率降低(13 ± 3次/分钟对14 ± 4次/分钟)、胃充气发生率降低(4.2%对38.7%)以及胃充气中位数体积降低(351 [范围,18 - 1211 ml]对1426 [20 - 5882 ml]);肺潮气量(538 ± 97 ml对533 ± 97 ml)相当。吸气与呼气比值显著增加(P < 0.001)(1.7 ± 0.5对1.5 ± 0.6)。总之,与标准袋阀面罩装置相比,SMART BAG降低了吸气流量、平均气道压力以及胃充气的发生率和实际体积,同时维持了输送的肺潮气量并提高了吸气与呼气比值。