Cargando…

Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and tolerability of preoxygenation with the self-inflating bag-valve-mask (BVM) and non-rebreather mask (NRM) as are used before emergency anaesthesia. DESIGN: Device performance evaluation. SETTING: Experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: 12 male and 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Robinson, Amelia, Ercole, Ari
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3488733/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23103607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001785
_version_ 1782248669329752064
author Robinson, Amelia
Ercole, Ari
author_facet Robinson, Amelia
Ercole, Ari
author_sort Robinson, Amelia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and tolerability of preoxygenation with the self-inflating bag-valve-mask (BVM) and non-rebreather mask (NRM) as are used before emergency anaesthesia. DESIGN: Device performance evaluation. SETTING: Experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: 12 male and 12 female healthy volunteers (age range 24–47) with no history of clinically significant respiratory disease. INTERVENTIONS: End-expiration oxygen measurements (F(E)O(2)) after 3 min of preoxygenation with BVM (without mechanical assistance) and NRM devices. Mask pressures were measured and subjective difficulty of breathing was also assessed with a visual analogue score (VAS). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The final F(E)O(2) achieved was 58.0% (SD 7.3%) for the NRM compared to 53.1% (SD 13.4%) for the BVM (p=0.072). Preoxygenation was associated with small increases in F(E)CO(2) that were greater for the BVM (0.50%; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.52) than the NRM (0.29%; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.28); this difference was statistically significant (p=0.028). Both devices were well tolerated on VAS assessment of difficulty of breathing although this was higher for the BVM than the NRM (median VAS 1.85/10 compared to 1.1/10; p=0.041). Inspiratory and expiratory mask pressures were higher for the BVM. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, the NRM performs comparably to the BVM in terms of the degree of denitrogenation achieved although neither performed well. Although it was well tolerated, the BVM was subjectively more difficult to breathe through and was associated with greater mask pressures and a small increase in F(E)CO(2) consistent with hypoventilation or rebreathing. Our results suggest that preoxygenation with the NRM may be a preferable approach in spontaneously breathing patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3488733
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34887332012-11-05 Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers Robinson, Amelia Ercole, Ari BMJ Open Anaesthesia OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and tolerability of preoxygenation with the self-inflating bag-valve-mask (BVM) and non-rebreather mask (NRM) as are used before emergency anaesthesia. DESIGN: Device performance evaluation. SETTING: Experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: 12 male and 12 female healthy volunteers (age range 24–47) with no history of clinically significant respiratory disease. INTERVENTIONS: End-expiration oxygen measurements (F(E)O(2)) after 3 min of preoxygenation with BVM (without mechanical assistance) and NRM devices. Mask pressures were measured and subjective difficulty of breathing was also assessed with a visual analogue score (VAS). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The final F(E)O(2) achieved was 58.0% (SD 7.3%) for the NRM compared to 53.1% (SD 13.4%) for the BVM (p=0.072). Preoxygenation was associated with small increases in F(E)CO(2) that were greater for the BVM (0.50%; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.52) than the NRM (0.29%; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.28); this difference was statistically significant (p=0.028). Both devices were well tolerated on VAS assessment of difficulty of breathing although this was higher for the BVM than the NRM (median VAS 1.85/10 compared to 1.1/10; p=0.041). Inspiratory and expiratory mask pressures were higher for the BVM. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, the NRM performs comparably to the BVM in terms of the degree of denitrogenation achieved although neither performed well. Although it was well tolerated, the BVM was subjectively more difficult to breathe through and was associated with greater mask pressures and a small increase in F(E)CO(2) consistent with hypoventilation or rebreathing. Our results suggest that preoxygenation with the NRM may be a preferable approach in spontaneously breathing patients. BMJ Publishing Group 2012 2012-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3488733/ /pubmed/23103607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001785 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Anaesthesia
Robinson, Amelia
Ercole, Ari
Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers
title Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers
title_full Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers
title_fullStr Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers
title_short Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers
title_sort evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers
topic Anaesthesia
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3488733/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23103607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001785
work_keys_str_mv AT robinsonamelia evaluationoftheselfinflatingbagvalvemaskandnonrebreathermaskaspreoxygenationdevicesinvolunteers
AT ercoleari evaluationoftheselfinflatingbagvalvemaskandnonrebreathermaskaspreoxygenationdevicesinvolunteers