A randomised crossover comparison of mouth-to-face-shield ventilation and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation by surf lifeguards in a manikin

Abstract

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. © 2014 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.