A randomised crossover comparison of mouth‐to‐face‐shield ventilation and mouth‐to‐pocket‐mask ventilation by surf lifeguards in a manikin. (28th April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Adelborg, K.; Bjørnshave, K.; Mortensen, M. B.; Espeseth, E.; Wolff, A.; Løfgren, B.
• Is Part Of: Anaesthesia. Volume 69:Number 7(2014:Jul.)
• Page Start: 712
• Page End: 716
• Publication Date: 2014-04-28
• Subjects: Anesthesia -- Periodicals; 617.96
• DOI: 10.1111/anae.12669
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-2409

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="anae12669-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p>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 &lt; 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.</p> </abstract>