Suppr超能文献

在无保护气道模型中比较不同流量降低型袋阀通气装置的呼吸力学和胃充气情况。

Comparison of different flow-reducing bag-valve ventilation devices regarding respiratory mechanics and gastric inflation in an unprotected airway model.

作者信息

Rabus Fabienne C, Luebbers Heinz-Theo, Graetz Klaus W, Mutzbauer Till S

机构信息

Department of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich Dental Center, Plattenstrasse 15, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2008 Aug;78(2):224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.02.022. Epub 2008 May 16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Gastric inflation (GI) is a significant issue when ventilation is performed on unprotected airways.

DESIGN

Experimental analysis on the respiratory effects of hose extended bag-valve ventilation devices designed to reduce inspiratory pressure and flow.

SETTING

Laboratory with lung/oesophageal sphincter simulator and pressure-flow-volume analyser. Lung compliance: 300ml/kPa, airway resistance: 0.5kPa/l/s. Lower oesophageal sphincter pressure (LOSP): 0.5kPa.

INTERVENTIONS

Bag-valve ventilation of lung simulator. Twelve academic dental staff members used four devices: Ambu Mark III attached to either a reservoir bag (R) or a pressure relief valve (SV), SMART BAG (SB), and Easy Grip (EG) as control.

RESULTS

After Bonferroni correction (p-level of significance 0.0083) for multiple comparisons, no evidence of difference between inspiratory tidal volumes (TVIN) administered by use of R (median 137ml) and SB (149ml) was found. Differences in TVIN were only detected between R and SV (188ml) (p=0.002). Only a trend towards TVIN differences between SB and R in comparison to EG (195ml) was found (p=0.009). Distributions of peak pressures differed when R (median 0.7kPa) and SV (1.0kPa) (p=0.006) or SB (0.7kPa) and SV (p=0.002) were compared. Peak inspiratory flow rates differed between EG (median 59l/min) and R (32l/min) as well as SB (42l/min) and between SB and SV (50l/min) (all with p=0.001). GI was lowest by use of R (median 103ml) compared to all other devices (EG: 518ml, SV: 394ml, SB: 271ml) (p=0.001). The areas under the pressure/flow over time curves were larger during SB compared to R ventilation. Mean airway pressures were significantly lower by use of R (0.1kPa) compared to SB (0.3kPa) (p<0.008).

CONCLUSION

Lowering GI by pressure-flow reduction may result in lower TV depending on the device used. Lowest GI resulted from R ventilation. This may be explained by the specific pressure/time or flow/time patterns achieved by use of this device.

摘要

目的

在对无保护气道进行通气时,胃充气(GI)是一个重要问题。

设计

对旨在降低吸气压力和流量的软管延长型袋阀通气装置的呼吸效应进行实验分析。

设置

配备肺/食管括约肌模拟器和压力-流量-容积分析仪的实验室。肺顺应性:300ml/kPa,气道阻力:0.5kPa/l/s。食管下括约肌压力(LOSP):0.5kPa。

干预措施

对肺模拟器进行袋阀通气。12名学术牙科工作人员使用了四种装置:连接储气袋(R)或减压阀(SV)的Ambu Mark III、智能袋(SB)以及作为对照的简易握把(EG)。

结果

在进行多重比较的Bonferroni校正(显著性p值为0.0083)后,未发现使用R(中位数137ml)和SB(149ml)给予的吸气潮气量(TVIN)之间存在差异的证据。仅在R和SV(188ml)之间检测到TVIN的差异(p = 0.002)。仅发现与EG(195ml)相比,SB和R之间存在TVIN差异的趋势(p = 0.009)。比较R(中位数0.7kPa)和SV(1.0kPa)(p = 0.006)或SB(0.7kPa)和SV(p = 0.002)时,峰值压力分布不同。EG(中位数59l/min)与R(32l/min)以及SB(42l/min)之间以及SB和SV(50l/min)之间的峰值吸气流量率不同(均p = 0.001)。与所有其他装置相比,使用R时GI最低(中位数103ml)(EG:518ml,SV:394ml,SB:271ml)(p = 0.001)。与R通气相比,SB通气期间压力/流量随时间曲线下的面积更大。与SB(0.3kPa)相比,使用R时平均气道压力显著更低(0.1kPa)(p < 0.008)。

结论

根据所使用的装置,通过降低压力-流量来降低GI可能会导致TV降低。R通气导致的GI最低。这可能是由于使用该装置实现的特定压力/时间或流量/时间模式所致。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验