Santos-Folgar Myriam, Otero-Agra Martín, Fernández-Méndez Felipe, Hermo-Gonzalo María Teresa, Barcala-Furelos Roberto, Rodríguez-Núñez Antonio
Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación y el Deporte, Universidad de Vigo, Pontevedra, España; Grupo de Investigación en Rendimiento y Motricidad del Salvamento y Socorrismo (REMOSS), Universidad de Vigo, Pontevedra, España.
Grupo de Investigación en Rendimiento y Motricidad del Salvamento y Socorrismo (REMOSS), Universidad de Vigo, Pontevedra, España; CLINURSID, Grupo de Investigación, Facultad de Enfermería, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, España; Escuela de Enfermería de Pontevedra, Universidad de Vigo, Pontevedra, España.
An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;89(5):272-278. doi: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2017.12.014. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
It has been observed that health professionals have difficulty performing quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this study was to compare the quality of ventilations performed by Nursing students on an infant model using different methods (mouth-to-mouth-and-nose or bag-valve-mask).
A quasi-experimental cross-sectional study was performed that included 46 second-year Nursing students. Two quantitative 4-minute tests of paediatric CPR were performed: a) mouth-to-mouth-and-nose ventilations, and b) ventilations with bag-valve-mask. A Resusci Baby QCPR Wireless SkillReporter® mannequin from Laerdal was used. The proportion of ventilations with adequate, excessive, and insufficient volume was recorded and analysed, as well as the overall quality of the CPR (ventilations and chest compressions).
The students were able to give a higher number of ventilations with adequate volume using the mouth-to-mouth-and-nose method (55±22%) than with the bag-valve-mask (28±16%, P<.001). The overall quality of the CPR was also significantly higher when using the mouth-to-mouth-and-nose method (60±19 vs. 48±16%, P<.001).
Mouth-to-mouth-and-nose ventilation method is more efficient than bag-valve-mask ventilations in CPR performed by nursing students with a simulated infant model.
据观察，医护人员在进行高质量心肺复苏（CPR）时存在困难。本研究的目的是比较护理专业学生在婴儿模型上使用不同方法（口对口鼻或袋面罩）进行通气的质量。
进行了一项准实验性横断面研究，纳入了46名护理专业二年级学生。进行了两项4分钟的小儿心肺复苏定量测试：a）口对口鼻通气，b）袋面罩通气。使用了Laerdal公司的Resusci Baby QCPR Wireless SkillReporter®模拟人。记录并分析了通气量充足、过多和不足的通气比例，以及心肺复苏的整体质量（通气和胸外按压）。
与使用袋面罩方法（28±16%）相比，学生使用口对口鼻方法能够进行更多通气量充足的通气（55±22%，P<0.001）。使用口对口鼻方法时，心肺复苏的整体质量也显著更高（60±19 vs. 48±16%，P<0.001）。
在护理专业学生使用模拟婴儿模型进行心肺复苏时，口对口鼻通气方法比袋面罩通气更有效。
