Harrison R R, Maull K I, Keenan R L, Boyan C P
Ann Emerg Med. 1982 Feb;11(2):74-6. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(82)80300-4.
Tidal volumes achieved using endotracheal intubation with a self-inflating bag were compared to those achieved with the esophageal obturator airway, a bag-valve mask system, and mouth-to-mask ventilation in an experimental model employing 18 unskilled and 4 partially skilled rescuers. When compared to mean tidal volumes achieved with endotracheal intubation (1,193 ml with unskilled, 942 ml with semi-skilled rescuers), ventilation with the bag-valve-mask system was significantly less (509 and 495 ml tidal volumes) and was, in fact, well below the value of 800 ml recommended for rescue breathing. Mouth-to-mask ventilation produced tidal volumes (1,093 ml and 1,200 ml) not significantly different from those seen with endotracheal intubation. If clinical findings confirm these experimental results, mouth-to-mask ventilation should replace the bag-valve-mask system in the initial management of respiratory arrest.
在一个由18名非熟练和4名部分熟练的救援人员参与的实验模型中,将使用自充气袋进行气管插管所实现的潮气量与使用食管阻塞气道、袋阀面罩系统和口对面罩通气所实现的潮气量进行了比较。与气管插管所实现的平均潮气量相比(非熟练救援人员为1193毫升,半熟练救援人员为942毫升),使用袋阀面罩系统进行通气时潮气量显著更低(分别为509毫升和495毫升),实际上远低于推荐用于急救呼吸的800毫升这一数值。口对面罩通气所产生的潮气量(分别为1093毫升和1200毫升)与气管插管时所见的潮气量没有显著差异。如果临床研究结果证实了这些实验结果,那么在呼吸骤停的初始处理中,口对面罩通气应取代袋阀面罩系统。