Mondolfi A A, Grenier B M, Thompson J E, Bachur R G
Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 1997 Oct;13(5):312-6. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199710000-00003.
To compare bag-mask ventilation performed by emergency department (ED) personnel using anesthesia bags (AB) and self-inflating bags (SIB).
ED in a teaching children's hospital where the AB is the device used during resuscitations.
Experimental study. Bag-mask ventilation was evaluated with an infant resuscitation mannequin equipped to measure airway volumes and pressures. Pediatric residents, ED nurses, and pediatric emergency medicine fellows performed bag-mask ventilation with AB and SIB and rated their confidence using each device.
Ventilation failure rates.
Seventy subjects participated (17 interns, 16 junior residents, 13 senior residents, 10 fellows, and 14 nurses). There were 13 failures with the AB (18.6%) versus 1 (1.4%) with the SIB (P < 0.01) [95% confidence interval: 5-29%], with a significant difference even after excluding the least experienced subjects. There was no difference in high pressure breaths delivered (SIB 19% vs AB 15%, P = 0.4) and a higher incidence of hyperventilation with the SIB (67 vs 25%, P < 0.01). While using the SIB, 19 (27%) of the subjects did not turn on the O2 flow. There was no difference in pretest confidence rating, but the posttest confidence rating was higher for the SIB (P < 0.05).
Compared to SIB use for bag-mask ventilation in an ED, AB use resulted in more ventilation failures, no advantage in preventing excessive airway pressures, and less confidence among operators. The SIB should be the first choice for bag-mask ventilation in the ED, with attention to maximize oxygen delivery.
比较急诊科(ED)人员使用麻醉袋(AB)和自动充气袋(SIB)进行面罩通气的效果。
在一家教学儿童医院的急诊科,复苏时使用的设备是AB。
实验研究。使用配备了测量气道容积和压力装置的婴儿复苏模型对面罩通气进行评估。儿科住院医师、急诊科护士和儿科急诊医学研究员使用AB和SIB进行面罩通气,并对使用每种设备时的信心进行评分。
通气失败率。
70名受试者参与研究(17名实习生、16名初级住院医师、13名高级住院医师、10名研究员和14名护士)。使用AB时有13次通气失败(18.6%),而使用SIB时为1次(1.4%)(P<0.01)[95%置信区间:5-29%],即使排除经验最少的受试者后仍有显著差异。输送的高压呼吸次数没有差异(SIB为19%,AB为15%,P=0.4),且使用SIB时过度通气的发生率更高(67%对25%,P<0.01)。使用SIB时,19名(27%)受试者未打开氧气流量。测试前的信心评分没有差异,但使用SIB后的测试后信心评分更高(P<0.05)。
与在急诊科使用SIB进行面罩通气相比,使用AB导致更多的通气失败,在防止气道压力过高方面没有优势,且操作人员的信心较低。SIB应成为急诊科面罩通气的首选,同时要注意最大限度地输送氧气。