Evaluation of efficacy of two bag-mask ventilation techniques by novice airway providers: Two-handed CE versus dominant-hand CE-non-dominant-hand thenar eminence techniques - A randomised controlled trial

评估新手气道管理者使用两种简易呼吸器通气技术的有效性:双手CE技术与优势手CE-非优势手大鱼际肌技术——一项随机对照试验

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The conventional CE clamp technique may not effectively provide bag-mask ventilation (BMV) in the hands of inexperienced providers. Hence, we compared the efficacy of two-handed CE versus a hybrid technique. METHODS: One hundred thirty-two American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II adult patients were randomised into groups A and B. After induction of anaesthesia and neuromuscular blockade, Group A received BMV by using the double-handed CE technique. Group B received BMV by using dominant-hand CE and non-dominant-hand thenar eminence (TE) hybrid technique. The primary outcome was two minute (24 breaths) mean exhaled tidal volume. Secondary outcomes were the number of failed breaths and the comfortability level of airway providers using a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Student t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The mean exhaled tidal volume and end-tidal carbon dioxide observed in Group A were significantly lower than in Group B (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). The number of failed breaths and comfort level of both techniques were comparable in both groups (P = 0.310. and P = 0.584, respectively). CONCLUSION: The dominant-hand CE and non-dominant-hand TE techniques provide higher exhaled tidal volumes with comparable provider comfortability and may be considered an alternate BMV technique.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。