12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      To intubate or not: ventilation is the question. A manikin-based observational study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          There is a continuous debate concerning the superiority of endotracheal intubation on bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation in patients with cardiac arrest. In this manikin-based observational study, we evaluate and compare the performance of manual ventilation through a facemask (BVM) and an endotracheal tube (ETT).

          Methods

          One hundred and forty healthcare providers were instructed to manually ventilate a manikin as they would do for a 75 kg adult patient in respiratory arrest. Each one was ventilating both through a facemask and an ETT for a 5 min period in a random order. Ventilatory parameters were measured by the ASL 5000 lung simulator and ventilation performance was analysed using a sliding window method published in a previous study to assess accurately ventilation efficiency.

          Results

          The mean ventilation rate was high whatever the technique used (24 bpm). A weak relationship between manual ventilation performance and the type of interface used was observed (p=0.0484). The overall rate of adequate ventilation was low even if we noticed a slight improvement when ventilating through an ETT (13.21% vs 7.5% of adequate ventilation). However, the rate of hyperventilation did not differ between mask and tube (79% vs 77%). A significant relationship is observed between professional category, the size of the hand squeezing the bag and manual ventilation performance (p<0.05).

          Conclusion

          Whatever the interface used, healthcare professionals are still struggling to perform manual ventilation efficiently according to international guidelines. Ventilation with an ETT does not prove to be significantly more efficient than with a facemask. It would be therefore important to recentre the debate on controlling ventilatory parameters with current devices. Focusing on training may maximise manual ventilation efficiency and minimise the loss of time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Hyperventilation-induced hypotension during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

          A clinical observational study revealed that rescuers consistently hyperventilated patients during out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The objective of this study was to quantify the degree of excessive ventilation in humans and determine if comparable excessive ventilation rates during CPR in animals significantly decrease coronary perfusion pressure and survival. In humans, ventilation rate and duration during CPR was electronically recorded by professional rescuers. In 13 consecutive adults (average age, 63+/-5.8 years) receiving CPR (7 men), average ventilation rate was 30+/-3.2 per minute (range, 15 to 49). Average duration per breath was 1.0+/-0.07 per second. No patient survived. Hemodynamics were studied in 9 pigs in cardiac arrest ventilated in random order with 12, 20, or 30 breaths per minute. Survival rates were then studied in 3 groups of 7 pigs in cardiac arrest that were ventilated at 12 breaths per minute (100% O2), 30 breaths per minute (100% O2), or 30 breaths per minute (5% CO2/95% O2). In animals treated with 12, 20, and 30 breaths per minute, the mean intrathoracic pressure (mm Hg/min) and coronary perfusion pressure (mm Hg) were 7.1+/-0.7, 11.6+/-0.7, 17.5+/-1.0 (P<0.0001), and 23.4+/-1.0, 19.5+/-1.8, and 16.9+/-1.8 (P=0.03), respectively. Survival rates were 6/7, 1/7, and 1/7 with 12, 30, and 30+ CO2 breaths per minute, respectively (P=0.006). Professional rescuers were observed to excessively ventilate patients during out-of-hospital CPR. Subsequent animal studies demonstrated that similar excessive ventilation rates resulted in significantly increased intrathoracic pressure and markedly decreased coronary perfusion pressures and survival rates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Part 3: Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open Respir Res
                BMJ Open Respir Res
                bmjresp
                bmjopenrespres
                BMJ Open Respiratory Research
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2052-4439
                2018
                17 July 2018
                : 5
                : 1
                : e000261
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentInserm CIC 1431 , University Hospital of Besançon , Besancon, France
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care , University Hospital of Besançon , Besançon, France
                [3 ]Monash University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Fatimata Seydou Sall; fatimata.sarr@ 123456chu-besancon.fr
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8351-0406
                Article
                bmjresp-2017-000261
                10.1136/bmjresp-2017-000261
                6089311
                42dcc21e-5644-494b-8f46-7f1259a00dc6
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 09 November 2017
                : 20 June 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Bpi France;
                Funded by: European Commission (FEDER) in Franche-Comté;
                Funded by: Regional Council of Franche-Comté;
                Funded by: Greater Besançon Urban Area Community (CAGB);
                Funded by: General Council of Doubs Department;
                Categories
                Non-Invasive Ventilation
                1506
                2223
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                non-invasive ventilation,equipment evaluations
                non-invasive ventilation, equipment evaluations

                Comments

                Comment on this article