Suppr超能文献

在单人进行袋面罩通气时,新手使用 E-O 技术比 E-C 技术在模拟人上更有优势。

E-O technique is superior to E-C technique in manikins during single person bag mask ventilation performed by novices.

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia, Kasturba Hospital, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, 576104, India,

出版信息

J Clin Monit Comput. 2014 Jun;28(3):269-73. doi: 10.1007/s10877-013-9531-9. Epub 2013 Nov 8.

Abstract

Conventional E-C technique of mask holding is unreliable during single person bag mask ventilation (BMV) due mainly to leak around the mask and inexperience of the persons. In this manikin study, conventional E-C technique was compared with E-O technique during single person BMV both with experienced (n = 50) and novice (n = 50) volunteers. The E-O technique involved encircling the mask neck with the web between thumb and index finger while the other digits provided chin lift. Two independent observers recorded the chest expansion as 1 (nil), 2 (minimal), 3 (moderate) and 4 (good). For analysis ideal and average chest expansion were clubbed as acceptable. E-C technique in experienced volunteers showed acceptable results in 49 (31 + 18) occasions, while with novices acceptable is 39 (17 + 22). With E-O technique, expansion was acceptable in 47 (38 + 9) experienced volunteers, and acceptable in 46 (32 + 14) novices. (P = 0.003). In cross over analysis for experienced volunteers, similar chest expansion was obtained on 30 occasions with both techniques, E-C better than E-O on 8 and E-O better than E-C on 12 occasions. Novices had comparable results on 17 occasions, E-C better than E-O on 8 and E-O better than E-C on 25 occasions (P = 0.016). The conventionally taught E-C technique of single person BMV provides acceptable chest expansion on most occasions with experienced operators than novices. Novices should use E-O technique as the first choice for single person BMV. Both techniques may be used interchangeably when one fails.

摘要

传统的单人 BMV 通气时的 E-C 面罩固定技术不太可靠,主要是因为面罩周围存在泄漏以及操作人员缺乏经验。在这项模拟研究中,我们比较了经验丰富(n=50)和缺乏经验(n=50)的志愿者在单人 BMV 中使用传统的 E-C 技术与 E-O 技术。E-O 技术涉及用拇指和食指之间的网络环绕面罩颈部,而其他手指提供下巴抬起。两位独立观察者记录胸部扩张为 1(无)、2(最小)、3(中等)和 4(良好)。为了分析,理想和平均的胸部扩张被归为可接受的。在经验丰富的志愿者中,E-C 技术在 49 次(31+18)中表现出可接受的结果,而在新手组中,可接受的有 39 次(17+22)。使用 E-O 技术,在 47 名(38+9)经验丰富的志愿者中,扩张是可接受的,在 46 名(32+14)新手志愿者中,扩张是可接受的。(P=0.003)。在经验丰富的志愿者的交叉分析中,两种技术在 30 次操作中获得了相似的胸部扩张,E-C 技术优于 E-O 技术 8 次,E-O 技术优于 E-C 技术 12 次。新手在 17 次操作中具有可比的结果,E-C 技术优于 E-O 技术 8 次,E-O 技术优于 E-C 技术 25 次(P=0.016)。在大多数情况下,经验丰富的操作人员使用传统的单人 BMV 通气时的 E-C 技术可获得可接受的胸部扩张,而新手则效果较差。新手应将 E-O 技术作为单人 BMV 的首选技术。当一种技术失败时,可以交替使用这两种技术。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验