在模拟的成年体型患者身上使用儿童尺寸的球囊面罩时,急救医疗服务人员能否提供合适的潮气量?
Can EMS Providers Provide Appropriate Tidal Volumes in a Simulated Adult-sized Patient with a Pediatric-sized Bag-Valve-Mask?
作者信息
Siegler Jeffrey, Kroll Melissa, Wojcik Susan, Moy Hawnwan Philip
出版信息
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 Jan-Feb;21(1):74-78. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2016.1227003. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
INTRODUCTION
In the prehospital setting, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) professionals rely on providing positive pressure ventilation with a bag-valve-mask (BVM). Multiple emergency medicine and critical care studies have shown that lung-protective ventilation protocols reduce morbidity and mortality. Our primary objective was to determine if a group of EMS professionals could provide ventilations with a smaller BVM that would be sufficient to ventilate patients. Secondary objectives included 1) if the pediatric bag provided volumes similar to lung-protective ventilation in the hospital setting and 2) compare volumes provided to the patient depending on the type of airway (mask, King tube, and intubation).
METHODS
Using a patient simulator of a head and thorax that was able to record respiratory rate, tidal volume, peak pressure, and minute volume via a laptop computer, participants were asked to ventilate the simulator during six 1-minute ventilation tests. The first scenario was BVM ventilation with an oropharyngeal airway in place ventilating with both an adult- and pediatric-sized BVM, the second scenario had a supraglottic airway and both bags, and the third scenario had an endotracheal tube and both bags. Participants were enrolled in convenience manner while they were on-duty and the research staff was able to travel to their stations. Prior to enrolling, participants were not given any additional training on ventilation skills.
RESULTS
We enrolled 50 providers from a large, busy, urban fire-based EMS agency with 14.96 (SD = 9.92) mean years of experience. Only 1.5% of all breaths delivered with the pediatric BVM during the ventilation scenarios were below the recommended tidal volume. A greater percentage of breaths delivered in the recommended range occurred when the pediatric BVM was used (17.5% vs 5.1%, p < 0.001). Median volumes for each scenario were 570.5mL, 664.0mL, 663.0mL for the pediatric BMV and 796.0mL, 994.5mL, 981.5mL for the adult BVM. In all three categories of airway devices, the pediatric BVM provided lower median tidal volumes (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
The study suggests that ventilating an adult patient is possible with a smaller, pediatric-sized BVM. The tidal volumes recorded with the pediatric BVM were more consistent with lung-protective ventilation volumes.
引言
在院前环境中,紧急医疗服务(EMS)专业人员依靠使用袋阀面罩(BVM)进行正压通气。多项急诊医学和重症监护研究表明,肺保护性通气方案可降低发病率和死亡率。我们的主要目标是确定一组EMS专业人员是否能够使用较小的BVM进行通气,该BVM足以对患者进行通气。次要目标包括:1)儿科用的袋子提供的潮气量是否与医院环境中的肺保护性通气相似;2)根据气道类型(面罩、King导管和气管插管)比较提供给患者的潮气量。
方法
使用一个能够通过笔记本电脑记录呼吸频率、潮气量、峰值压力和分钟通气量的头部和胸部患者模拟器,要求参与者在六次1分钟的通气测试中对模拟器进行通气。第一种情况是在放置口咽气道的情况下,使用成人和儿科尺寸的BVM进行通气;第二种情况是使用声门上气道和两种袋子进行通气;第三种情况是使用气管内导管和两种袋子进行通气。参与者以便利抽样的方式在其值班时被招募,研究人员能够前往他们的站点。在招募之前,没有对参与者进行任何额外的通气技能培训。
结果
我们从一个大型、繁忙的城市消防EMS机构招募了50名提供者,他们的平均经验年限为14.96年(标准差=9.92)。在通气测试期间,使用儿科BVM进行的所有通气中,只有1.5%低于推荐的潮气量。使用儿科BVM时,在推荐范围内进行的通气比例更高(17.5%对5.1%,p<0.001)。每种情况的儿科BVM的中位数潮气量分别为570.5mL、664.0mL、663.0mL,成人BVM的中位数潮气量分别为796.0mL、994.5mL、981.5mL。在所有三类气道装置中,儿科BVM提供的中位数潮气量较低(p<0.001)。
结论
该研究表明,使用较小尺寸的儿科BVM对成年患者进行通气是可行的。使用儿科BVM记录的潮气量与肺保护性通气量更为一致。