安布自动充气式气囊和纽普夫婴儿复苏器能否为体重达10千克的婴儿提供充足且安全的手动通气?

Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?

作者信息

Tracy Mark, Maheshwari Rajesh, Shah Dharmesh, Hinder Murray

机构信息

Neonatal Intensive Care, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.

Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Sydney University, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017 Jul;102(4):F333-F338. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311830. Epub 2016 Dec 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.

METHODS

Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmHO, 25/5 cmHO, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmHO, 30/5 cmHO, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmHO, 35/5 cmHO, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.

RESULTS

3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ambu SIB was able to accurately deliver targeted pressures across all three models from preterm to infant. The Neopuff infant resuscitator was unable to deliver the targeted pressures in the infant model developing clinically significant levels of inadvertent PEEP which may pose risk during infant resuscitation.

摘要

背景

用于婴儿和新生儿的手动复苏设备必须能够在广泛的患者体重范围(0.5 - 10千克)和不同临床状态下以安全且一致的方式提供足够的通气。几乎没有比较数据来评估常见婴儿手动复苏设备在制造商推荐的操作体重范围内的生物力学性能。我们旨在比较三种复苏模型中Ambu自充气袋(SIB)和Neopuff T型复苏器的性能。

方法

五名经验丰富的临床医生对三种顺应性、输送压力和充气速率不同的肺模型进行目标通气;早产儿(0.5毫升/厘米水柱,25/5厘米水柱,每分钟60次)、足月儿(3毫升/厘米水柱,30/5厘米水柱,每分钟40次)和婴儿(9毫升/厘米水柱,35/5厘米水柱,每分钟30次)。对Neopuff使用三种气体流入速率(每分钟5升(LPM)、10 LPM和15 LPM)进行检查,对Ambu则不使用气体流入。

结果

收集并分析了3309次充气,采用重复测量方差分析。在该婴儿模型中,Neopuff无法达到设定的峰值充气压力,并且在所有气体流入速率下均表现出呼气末正压(PEEP)严重升高(p<0.001)。Ambu SIB在所有三种模型中均准确输送目标压力。

结论

Ambu SIB能够在从早产儿到婴儿的所有三种模型中准确输送目标压力。Neopuff婴儿复苏器在婴儿模型中无法输送目标压力,会产生临床上显著水平的意外PEEP,这在婴儿复苏期间可能构成风险。

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