...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Anaesthesia: Journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland >A randomised crossover comparison of mouth-to-face-shield ventilation and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation by surf lifeguards in a manikin
【24h】

A randomised crossover comparison of mouth-to-face-shield ventilation and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation by surf lifeguards in a manikin

机译：人体模型中冲浪救生员的口对面罩通气和口对袋口罩通气的随机交叉比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Thirty surf lifeguards (mean (SD) age: 25.1 (4.8) years; 21 male, 9 female) were randomly assigned to perform 2 × 3 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a manikin using mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (AMBU ? LifeKey) and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (Laerdal Pocket Mask?). Interruptions in chest compressions, effective ventilation (visible chest rise) ratio, tidal volume and inspiratory time were recorded. Interruptions in chest compressions per cycle were increased with mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (mean (SD) 8.6 (1.7) s) compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (6.9 (1.2) s, p 0.0001). The proportion of effective ventilations was less using mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (199/242 (82%)) compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (239/240 (100%), p = 0.0002). Tidal volume was lower using mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (mean (SD) 0.36 (0.20) l) compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (0.45 (0.20) l, p = 0.006). No differences in inspiratory times were observed between mouth-to-face-shield ventilation and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation. In conclusion, mouth-to-face-shield ventilation increases interruptions in chest compressions, reduces the proportion of effective ventilations and decreases delivered tidal volumes compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation.
机译：随机分配了30名冲浪救生员（平均（SD）年龄：25.1（4.8）岁;男21名，女9名），使用口对面屏蔽通气（AMBU？LifeKey）对人体模型进行2×3分钟的心肺复苏）和嘴对口袋面罩的通气（Laerdal口袋面罩？）。记录胸部按压的中断，有效通气（可见胸部抬高）比，潮气量和吸气时间。与口罩式通气（6.9（1.2）s，p <0.0001）相比，口罩式通气（平均（SD）8.6（1.7）s）增加了每个周期的胸部按压中断。使用口对面口罩通气的有效通气比例（199/242（82％））少于口对口口罩通气的有效通气比例（239/240（100％），p = 0.0002）。使用口对面通气（平均（SD）0.36（0.20）l）的潮气量比口对面通气（0.45（0.20）l，p = 0.006）低。口对面罩通气和口对袋口罩通气之间的吸气时间没有差异。总之，与口对口罩式通气相比，口对面式通气增加了胸部按压的中断时间，减少了有效通气的比例，并减少了潮气量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号