Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:47:50.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Bag-Valve-Mask Ventilation by Paramedics in Simulated Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Jan Schumacher ,
Lena Weidelt ,
Stuart A. Gray  and
Andrea Brinker
Jan Schumacher*
Affiliation:
Consultant Anesthetist and Honorary Senior Lecturer, King's College, St. Thomas' Campus, London, UK
Lena Weidelt
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Department of Anesthetics, Luebeck University Hospital, Germany
Stuart A. Gray
Affiliation:
Paramedic, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, UK
Andrea Brinker
Affiliation:
Resident, Department of Anesthetics, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
*
Consultant and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Guy's, Kings and St Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College London, St. Thomas' Campus, Department of Anesthetics, Lambeth Palace Rd, London SE1 7EH, UK, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Bag-valve-mask ventilation is a key component of life support, but only one handheld resuscitator is designed to operate in contaminated or toxic atmospheres.

Methods:

After Institutional Review Board approval, the efficacy of this device was evaluated. The distal trachea of a LaerdalTM Airway Management Trainer was connected to a mechanical Draeger Volumeter 3000TM to enable determination of the minute volume delivered by BVM ventilation. Nineteen paramedics wearing chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) protective equipment were asked to ventilate this modified airway trainer, either with or without a CBRN filter attached to the inlet filtration system of the AMBUTM Mark III Resuscitator. The maximum levels of minute ventila-tion achieved were compared. Values are given as mean ±SD. A paired t-test was used to detect any differences between the two groups, p-values of <0.05 were defined to show statistical significance.

Results:

The described model allowed a reproducible and reliable measurement of the delivered minute ventilation. All paramedics were able to operate the device without prior CBRN training. The maximum minute volume achieved without the filter was 9.5 ±2.7 l/min. Use of the inlet CBRN filtra-tion system reduced the maximum minute volume to 6.3 ±2.0 l/min, reduction: 23%. The achieved maximum minute volumes ranged from 15 to 4.9 l/min in the controls and from 9.8 to 1.4 l/min in the CBRN group. Four paramedics were unable to achieve a minute volume >5 l/min in the CBRN group, one participant failed to achieve that value in the control group. The inherent breathing resistance of the CBRN filter appears to reduce the inflow of air into the self-inflatable bag. This delay in refilling may have resulted in a reduced achievable minute volume.

Conclusions:

The range of maximum minute volumes observed in both groups highlights the need for continuous BVM ventilator training.

Keywords

bag-valve-mask ventilationhazardous substances
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 24 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 398 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2009

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.Department of Health, United Kingdom, GNN press release ref 144795P, 2007.Google Scholar
2.Byers, M, Russell, M, Lockey, DJ: Clinical care in the “Hot Zone”. Emerg Med J 2008;25:108–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Baker, DJ: Civilian exposure to toxic agents: Emergency medical response. Prehosp Disaster Med 2004;19:174–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Clarke, SF, Chilcott, RP, Wilson, JC, et al. : Decontamination of multiple casu-alties who are chemically contaminated: A challenge for acute hospitals. Prehosp Disaster Med 2008;23:175–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Masuda, N, Takatsu, M, Morinari, H, Ozawa, T: Sarin poisoning in Tokyo sub-way. Lancet 1995;345:1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Nakajima, T, Sato, S, Morita, H, Yanagisawa, N: Sarin poisoning of a rescue team in the Matsumoto sarin incident in Japan. J Occup Environ Med 1997;54:697–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Nozaki, H, Hori, S, Shinozawa, Y, et al. : Secondary exposure of medical staff to sarin vapor in the emergency room. Intensive Care Med 1995;21:1032–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Baker, DJ: Management of respiratory failure in toxic disasters. Resuscitation 1999;42:125–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Ben Abraham, R, Rudick, V, Weinbroum, AA: Practical guidelines for acute care of victims of bioterrorism: conventional injuries and concomitant nerve agent intoxication. Anesthesiology 2002;97:989–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Jordan, GM, Silsby, J, Bayley, G, Cook, TM: Evaluation of four manikins as simulators for teaching airway management procedures specified in the Difficult Airway Society guidelines, and other advanced airway skills. Anaesthesia 2007;62:708–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Sardesai, AM, Brown, NM, Menon, DK: Deliberate release of biological agents. Anaesthesia 2002;57:1067–1082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.de Jong, RH: Nerve gas terrorism: A grim challenge to anesthesiologists. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2003;96:819–825.Google Scholar
13.White, SM: Chemical and biological weapons; Implications for anaesthesia and intensive care. Br J Anaesth 2002;89:306–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.US Army Medical Research Institute: Medical Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook. 3th ed, US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense (USAMRICD) McLean, International Medical Publishing, Inc, 2002; pp 175–207.Google Scholar
15.Gould, G, Kerr, S, Prophet, N: Preparation for terrorist attacks. Anaesthesia 2004;59:199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Reilly, MJ, Markenson, D, DiMaggio, C: Comfort level of emergency medical service providers in responding to weapons of mass destruction events: impact of training and equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22:297–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed