Evaluation of simulated ventilation techniques with the upright and conventional self-inflating neonatal resuscitators

6Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The study assessed the impact of simulated ventilation techniques using upright and conventional self-inflating neonatal resuscitators on delivered tidal volume (VT) and pressure. METHODS: We analyzed videos of participants ventilating a manikin using an upright (upright, n = 33) and a conventional resuscitator (conventional, n = 32) under normal and low lung compliance. Mask hold, number of fingers squeezing the bag, and degree of bag squeeze were compared with VT and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP). RESULTS: VT and PIP values were higher when using the upright resuscitator than when using the conventional resuscitator. With low compliance, differences in VT were insignificant except with the use of the OK/C hold, (upright, 29.6 ± 4.0 mL, vs conventional, 24.8 ± 6.0 mL, P =.02). PIP was significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 36.3 ± 4.4 mL, vs conventional, 30.3 ± 6.6 mL, P =.009) and when the bag was squeezed by more than half (upright, 33.8 ± 16.3 mL, vs conventional, 29.3 ± 9.5 mL, P =.046). With normal compliance, VT was high with both resuscitators, being significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 64.3 ± 9.5 mL, vs conventional, 45.8 ± 9.4 mL; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Narayanan, I., Mendhi, M., Bansil, P., & Coffey, P. S. (2017). Evaluation of simulated ventilation techniques with the upright and conventional self-inflating neonatal resuscitators. Respiratory Care, 62(11), 1428–1436. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.05328

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free