首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >An evaluation of bag-valve-mask ventilation using an ergonomically designed facemask among novice users: a simulation-based pilot study.
【24h】

An evaluation of bag-valve-mask ventilation using an ergonomically designed facemask among novice users: a simulation-based pilot study.

机译:在新手用户中使用符合人体工程学设计的口罩对气囊阀口罩通气进行评估:基于模拟的试点研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the ability of novice operators to provide artificial ventilation using a standard facemask and a new ergonomically designed facemask. Whether or not proper technique was used was also assessed. METHODS: Thirty-two allied-health students used both masks in random crossover fashion to ventilate an airway trainer. Breaths were delivered by a mechanical ventilator and exhaled tidal volume was recorded for each of 12 breaths for each participant for each mask. The effect of each mask during ventilation over time was assessed using repeated-measures ANOVA. Assessment of mask technique among participants and association between mask type and hand repositioning were analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test and McNemar's paired proportions test, respectively. RESULTS: The tidal volume achieved when participants used the ergonomic mask was higher than when participants used the standard mask by the fourth breath (361+/-104 mL vs. 264+/-163 mL; Bonferroni adjusted p-value=0.040) and increased over time. The repeated-measures ANOVA showed that the ergonomic mask consistently resulted in higher tidal volumes than the standard mask regardless of rescuer's gender. Over time the standard mask resulted in a linear decrease in tidal volume of -10 mL/breath (estimated difference in decay of 10 mL/breath versus the ergonomic mask; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Novice airway operators were better able to provide facemask ventilation using an ergonomically designed mask than with a traditional facemask. We conclude that better hand position facilitating improved mask seal and less operator fatigue account for our findings.
机译:目的:我们试图比较新手操作员使用标准口罩和符合人体工程学的新型口罩提供人工通气的能力。还评估了是否使用了适当的技术。方法:32名专职健康学生以随机交叉方式使用两个口罩为呼吸道教练通气。用机械呼吸机呼吸,并记录每个口罩每个参与者12次呼吸的呼气量。使用重复测量方差分析评估每个面罩在一段时间内的通气效果。分别使用Wilcoxon-Rank Sum检验和McNemar的配对比例检验分析了参与者之间的口罩技术评估以及口罩类型与手重新定位之间的关联。结果:第四次呼吸时,参与者使用人体工学面罩的潮气量高于参与者使用标准口罩时的潮气量(361 +/- 104 mL对264 +/- 163 mL; Bonferroni调整的p值= 0.040)和随着时间增加。重复测量的方差分析表明,无论救援人员的性别如何,符合人体工程学的面罩始终比标准面罩产生更高的潮气量。随着时间的流逝,标准面罩导致潮气量线性减少-10 mL /呼吸(与人体工程学面罩相比,衰减10 mL /呼吸的估计差异; p <0.001)。结论:与传统面罩相比,使用符合人体工程学的面罩,新手气道操作员能够更好地提供面罩通气。我们得出的结论是,更好的手部位置有利于改善面罩密封性并减少操作员疲劳。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号