Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Bag-Valve-Mask versus Laryngeal Mask Airway Ventilation in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Compressions: A Simulation Study

  • Zerrin Defne Dundar, Mustafa Kursat Ayranci, Sedat Kocak, Abdullah Sadik Girisgin
  • Journal:
    Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 36 / Issue 2 / April 2021
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 February 2021, pp. 189-194
    Print publication:
    April 2021
  • Introduction:

    The 2017 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guideline recommends that Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers can perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with synchronous or asynchronous ventilation until an advanced airway has been placed. In the current literature, limited data on CPR performed with continuous compressions and asynchronous ventilation with bag-valve-mask (BVM) are available.

    Study Objective:

    In this study, researchers aimed to compare the effectiveness of asynchronous BVM and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ventilation during CPR with continuous chest compressions.

    Methods:

    Emergency medicine residents and interns were included in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to resuscitation teams with two rescuers. The cross-over simulation study was conducted on two CPR scenarios: asynchronous ventilation via BVM during a continuous chest compression and asynchronous ventilation via LMA during a continuous chest compression in cardiac arrest patient with asystole. The primary endpoints were the ventilation-related measurements.

    Results:

    A total of 92 volunteers were included in the study and 46 CPRs were performed in each group. The mean rate of ventilations of the LMA group was significantly higher than that of the BVM group (13.7 [11.7-15.7] versus 8.9 [7.5-10.3] breaths/minute; P <.001). The mean volume of ventilations of the LMA group was significantly higher than that of the BVM group (358.4 [342.3-374.4] ml versus 321.5 [303.9-339.0] ml; P = .002). The mean minute ventilation volume of the LMA group was significantly higher than that of the BVM group (4.88 [4.15-5.61] versus 2.99 [2.41-3.57] L/minute; P <.001). Ventilations exceeding the maximum volume limit occurred in two (4.3%) CPRs in the BVM group and in 11 (23.9%) CPRs in the LMA group (P = .008).

    Conclusion:

    The results of this study show that asynchronous BVM ventilation with continuous chest compressions is a reliable and effective strategy during CPR under simulation conditions. The clinical impact of these findings in actual cardiac arrest patients should be evaluated with further studies at real-life scenes.