English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: Using a simulated airway model, we compared ventilation performance by emergency medical services (EMS) providers using a traditional bag–valve–mask (Easy Grip ® ) resuscitator to their performance when using a new device, the SMART BAG ®  resuscitator, which has a pressure-responsive flow-limiting valve. Methods: We recruited EMS providers at an EMS educational forum and performed a randomized, non-blinded, prospective crossover comparison of ventilation with 2 devices on a non-intubated simulated airway model. Subjects were instructed to ventilate a Mini Ventilation Training Analyzer ®  as they would an 85-kg adult patient in respiratory arrest. After being randomized to order of device use, they performed ventilation for 1 minute with each device. Primary outcomes were ventilation rates and peak airway pressures. We also measured average tidal volume, gastric inflation volume, minute ventilation and inspiratory:expiratory (I:E) ratio, and compared our results to the American Heart Association standards (2005 edition). Results: We observed statistically significant differences between the SMART BAG ®  and the traditional bag–valve–mask for respiratory rate (12 v. 14 breaths/min), peak airway pressure (15.6 v. 18.9 cm H 2 O), gastric inflation (239.6 v. 1598.4 mL), minute ventilation (7980 v. 8775 mL), and I:E ratio (1.3 v. 1.1). Average tidal volume was similar with both devices (679.6 v. 672.2 mL). Conclusion: The SMART BAG ®  provided ventilation performance that was more consistent with American Heart Association guidelines and delivered similar tidal volumes when compared with ventilation with a traditional bag–valve–mask resuscitator.

Impact of A Pressure-Responsive Flow-Limiting Valve on Bag–valve–mask Ventilation in an Airway Model