Premium
A randomised crossover comparison of mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation by surf lifeguards in a manikin
Author(s) -
Adelborg K.,
Bjørnshave K.,
Mortensen M. B.,
Espeseth E.,
Wolff A.,
Løfgren B.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
anaesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.839
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2044
pISSN - 0003-2409
DOI - 10.1111/anae.12669
Subject(s) - ventilation (architecture) , medicine , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , tidal volume , face shield , respiratory minute volume , anesthesia , resuscitation , respiratory system , meteorology , health care , physics , economics , economic growth
Summary Thirty surf lifeguards (mean (SD) age: 25.1 (4.8) years; 21 male, 9 female) were randomly assigned to perform 2 × 3 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a manikin using mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (AMBU ® LifeKey) and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (Laerdal Pocket Mask™). Interruptions in chest compressions, effective ventilation (visible chest rise) ratio, tidal volume and inspiratory time were recorded. Interruptions in chest compressions per cycle were increased with mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (mean (SD) 8.6 (1.7) s) compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (6.9 (1.2) s, p < 0.0001). The proportion of effective ventilations was less using mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (199/242 (82%)) compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (239/240 (100%), p = 0.0002). Tidal volume was lower using mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation (mean (SD) 0.36 (0.20) l) compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation (0.45 (0.20) l, p = 0.006). No differences in inspiratory times were observed between mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation. In conclusion, mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation increases interruptions in chest compressions, reduces the proportion of effective ventilations and decreases delivered tidal volumes compared with mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation.