Thallinger Monica, Ersdal Hege Langli, Ombay Crescent, Eilevstjønn Joar, Størdal Ketil
Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Institute for Experimental Medical Research, University of Oslo, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016 Jul;101(4):F299-303. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308754. Epub 2015 Oct 5.
To compare ventilation properties and user preference of a new upright neonatal resuscitator developed for easier cleaning, reduced complexity, and possibly improved ventilation properties, with the standard Laerdal neonatal resuscitator.
Eighty-seven Tanzanian and Norwegian nursing and medical students without prior knowledge of newborn resuscitation were briefly trained in bag-mask ventilation. The two resuscitators were used in random order on a manikin connected to a test lung with normal or low lung compliance. Data were collected with the Laerdal Newborn Resuscitation Monitor. The students graded mask seal and ease of air entry on a four-point scale ranging from 1 ('difficult') to 4 ('easy') and stated which device they preferred. (Equipment from Laerdal Global Health and Laerdal Medical).
For upright versus standard resuscitator and normal lung compliance, mean expiratory lung volume was 15.5 mL vs 13.9 mL (p=0.001), mean mask leakage 48% vs 58% (p<0.001), and mean airway pressure 20 cm H2O vs 19 cm H2O (p=0.003), respectively. For low lung compliance, mean expiratory lung volume was 8.6 mL vs 8.1 mL (p=0.045), mean mask leakage 53% vs 62% (p<0.001), and mean airway pressure 21 cm H2O vs 20 cm H2O (p=0.004) for upright versus standard. The upright resuscitator was preferred by 82% and 68% of students during ventilation with normal and low lung compliance, respectively (p=0.001).
Expiratory volumes were higher, mask leakage lower, and mean airway pressure slightly higher with upright versus standard resuscitator when ventilating a manikin. The majority of students preferred the upright resuscitator.
比较一款新开发的直立式新生儿复苏器与标准的Laerdal新生儿复苏器的通气性能和用户偏好。新的复苏器旨在更易于清洁、降低复杂性,并可能改善通气性能。
87名之前没有新生儿复苏知识的坦桑尼亚和挪威护理及医学专业学生接受了简短的面罩通气培训。这两款复苏器以随机顺序用于连接到具有正常或低肺顺应性测试肺的人体模型上。使用Laerdal新生儿复苏监测仪收集数据。学生们根据从1(“困难”)到4(“容易”)的四点量表对面罩密封和空气进入的难易程度进行评分,并说明他们更喜欢哪种设备。(设备来自Laerdal全球健康公司和Laerdal医疗公司)。
对于直立式与标准复苏器以及正常肺顺应性情况,平均呼气肺容积分别为15.5毫升对13.9毫升(p = 0.001),平均面罩漏气率为48%对58%(p < 0.001),平均气道压力为20厘米水柱对19厘米水柱(p = 0.003)。对于低肺顺应性情况,直立式与标准复苏器相比,平均呼气肺容积为8.6毫升对8.1毫升(p = 0.045),平均面罩漏气率为53%对62%(p < 0.001),平均气道压力为21厘米水柱对20厘米水柱(p = 0.004)。在正常和低肺顺应性通气期间,分别有82%和68%的学生更喜欢直立式复苏器(p = 0.001)。
在对人体模型进行通气时,直立式复苏器与标准复苏器相比,呼气量更高,面罩漏气率更低,平均气道压力略高。大多数学生更喜欢直立式复苏器。