Ní Chathasaigh C M, Curley A E, O Currain E
Department of Neonatology, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland.
Resusc Plus. 2025 Mar 20;23:100937. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100937. eCollection 2025 May.
Respiratory function monitors (RFM) provide objective feedback on respiratory parameters during face mask ventilation. While traditional RFMs display detailed waveforms, newer devices use simplified, colour-coded graphics. We aimed to compare three RFM feedback methods against a no-feedback approach, assessing ventilation parameters and user interpretation.
This simulation-based, crossover randomised study involved healthcare professionals at a tertiary neonatal centre, who received training on two RFMs: a "Coloured graphic" device (Monivent NeoTraining), offering monitor and sensor light feedback, and a "Flow curves" device (Respironics NM3). Participants performed positive pressure ventilation on a manikin across three phases: access to the "Coloured graphic" monitor and sensor light, "Light only", and access to the "Flow curves" monitor, evaluated against a control phase with no feedback. An interpretation assessment followed. The primary outcome was the median difference in mask leak (%) between the control and the three intervention phases.
Data from 51 participants were analysed. Compared to the control, the median (IQR) mask leak (%) was significantly lower in the "Coloured graphic" phase (11% [7%-26%]; median difference: -13 [95% CI: -26 to -2]). No significant differences were observed in the "Light only" phase (22% [8%-39%]); median difference: -10 [95% CI: -25 to 5]), or "Flow curves" phase (44% [6%-73%]; median difference: 8 [95% CI: -2 to 18]). Although more participants correctly interpreted the "Coloured graphic" feedback, only a minority selected appropriate corrective actions.
Objective feedback from the "Coloured graphic" RFM significantly reduced leak during mask ventilation.
呼吸功能监测仪（RFM）可在面罩通气期间提供有关呼吸参数的客观反馈。传统的RFM会显示详细的波形，而新型设备则使用简化的彩色编码图形。我们旨在将三种RFM反馈方法与无反馈方法进行比较，评估通气参数和用户解读情况。
这项基于模拟的交叉随机研究纳入了一家三级新生儿中心的医护人员，他们接受了两种RFM的培训：一种是“彩色图形”设备（Monivent NeoTraining），提供监测器和传感器灯光反馈；另一种是“流量曲线”设备（Respironics NM3）。参与者在一个人体模型上进行正压通气，分为三个阶段：使用“彩色图形”监测器和传感器灯光、仅使用“灯光”以及使用“流量曲线”监测器，与无反馈的对照阶段进行评估比较。随后进行解读评估。主要结局是对照阶段与三个干预阶段之间面罩漏气率（%）的中位数差异。
分析了51名参与者的数据。与对照相比，“彩色图形”阶段的面罩漏气率（%）中位数（IQR）显著更低（11% [7%-26%]；中位数差异：-13 [95% CI：-26至-2]）。在“仅灯光”阶段（22% [8%-39%]；中位数差异：-10 [95% CI：-25至5]）或“流量曲线”阶段（44% [6%-73%]；中位数差异：8 [95% CI：-2至18]）未观察到显著差异。尽管更多参与者正确解读了“彩色图形”反馈，但只有少数人选择了适当的纠正措施。
“彩色图形”RFM的客观反馈显著减少了面罩通气期间的漏气情况。
