Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:26:02.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Delivered Volumes and Airway Pressures when Ventilating Through an Endotracheal Tube with Bag-Valve Versus Demand-Valve

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Vincent N. Mosesso Jr. ,
Karen Lukitsch ,
James Menegazzi  and
Janet Mosesso
Vincent N. Mosesso Jr.*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Karen Lukitsch
Affiliation:
Referral Communications, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
James Menegazzi
Affiliation:
Center for Emergency Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Janet Mosesso
Affiliation:
Emergency Department, Mercy Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa.
*
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 230 McKee Place, Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA 15213USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Use of an oxygen-powered demand-valve to ventilate through an endotracheal tube is considered inappropriate due to concern regarding excessive airway pressure.

Hypothesis:

It was hypothesized that ventilation through an endotracheal tube using a bag-valve (BV) device and the recently modified demand-valve (DV) would produce similar tidal volumes (Vt), minute ventilation (MV), and peak airway pressures (PAP).

Methods:

This is a prospective, randomized vitro experimental model. Subjects were blinded to volume and pressure gauges. Thirty-nine EMTs (mean age 27 years with mean experience five years) volunteered to ventilate a mechanical test lung through an endotracheal tube for 10 minutes. Each subject was randomized to BV or DV and to either normal (0.1 L/cm H2O) or poor (0.04 L/cm H2O) lung compliance. This DV delivers set flow of 40 L/min at maximum 50±5 cm H2O. Subjects were instructed to use their “usual” technique for an average size adult in respiratory arrest with normal heart rate and blood pressure. The Vt and PAP were recorded for each breat; the MV and maximum PAP (PAP-max) for each minute was noted. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Tuke multiple comparisons with alpha set at 0.05.

Results:

Overall average tidal volumes and minute ventilations were acceptable with both ventilalory devices at both normal and poor compliance for the first, fifth, and 10th minute of continuous ventilation. Average airway pressures and peak airway pressures during the first, fifth, and 10th minute of ventilation all were significantly higher with those of the bag-valve than with the use of the demandvalve at both normal and poor compliance.

Conclusion:

In this model, ventilation with bag-valve and demand-valve both provided more than adequate Vt and MV; values wer similar except for higher Vt with BV at normal compliance. However, DV yielded significantly lower PAP and PAPmax at both poor and normal compliance. These findings need corrobration in an in vivo model, but suggest that with proper training, demand-valve ventilation through an endotracheal tube may be preferable.

Keywords

assisted ventilationbagvalvedemand-valveendotracheal intubationmanual ventilationminute ventilationpeak airway pressure
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 24 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stewart, RD, Kaplan, R, Pennock, B et al. : Influence of mask design on bag-mask ventilation. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:403–406.Google Scholar
2. Hess, D, Baran, C: Ventilatory volumes using mouth-to-mouth, mouth-to-mask, and bag-valve-mask techniques. Am J Emerg Med 1985;3:292–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Jesudian, MCS, Harrison, RR, Keenan, RL et al. : Bag-valve-mask ventilation: Two rescuers are better than one. Crit Care Med 1985;13:122–123.Google Scholar
4. American Heart Association: Advanced Cardiac Life Support. Dallas: American Heart Association, 1987;37.Google Scholar
5. Caroline, NL: Emergency Care in the Streets. 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1983, p 214.Google Scholar
6. Hafen, BQ, Karren, KJ: Prehospital Emergency Care & Crisis Intervention. Englewood, Colo.: Morton Publishing Co.; 1983, p 119.Google Scholar
7. Ornato, JP, Bryson, BL, Donovan, PJ et al. : Measurement of ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med 1983;11:79–82.Google Scholar
8. Augustine, JA, Seidel, DR, McCabe, JB: Ventilation performance using a self-inflating anesthesia bag: Effect of operator characteristics. Am J Emerg Med 1987;5:267–270.Google Scholar
9. Menegazzi, JJ, Winslow, HJ: Tidal volume, intrapleural pressure and gastric volume with bag-valve-mask versus oxygen-powered demand-valve. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:488.Google Scholar
10. Murray, J, Menegazzi, J, McCabe, J, Seaberg, D: Demand-valve ventilation in a swine pneumothorax model. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6:377.Google Scholar
11. Braman, SS, Dunn, SM, Amico, CA, Millman, RP: Complications of intrahospital transport in critically ill patients. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:469–473.Google Scholar
12. Weg, JG, Haas, CF: Safe intrahospital transport of critically ill ventilator-dependent patients. Chest 1989;96:631–635.Google Scholar
13. Gervais, HW, Balthasar, E, Konietzke, D: Comparison of blood gases of ventilated patients during transport. Crit Care Med 1987;15:761–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Terndrup, TE, Cherry, RA, McCabe, JB: Comparison of ventilation performance: Standard resuscitation bag and the resuscitation bag controller. J Emtrg Med 1990;8:121–125.Google Scholar
15. Melker, RJ, Banner, MJ: Ventilation during CPR: Two-rescuer standards reappraised. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 14:397–402.Google Scholar