• Jonnathan M Busko and Thomas H Blackwell.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina 28203, USA. jbuskomd@yahoo.com
• Can J Emerg Med. 2006 May 1;8(3):158-63.

ObjectiveUsing a simulated airway model, we compared ventilation performance by emergency medical services (EMS) providers using a traditional bag-valve-mask (Easy Grip) resuscitator to their performance when using a new device, the SMART BAG resuscitator, which has a pressure-responsive flow-limiting valve.MethodsWe recruited EMS providers at an EMS educational forum and performed a randomized, non-blinded, prospective crossover comparison of ventilation with 2 devices on a non-intubated simulated airway model. Subjects were instructed to ventilate a Mini Ventilation Training Analyzer as they would an 85-kg adult patient in respiratory arrest. After being randomized to order of device use, they performed ventilation for 1 minute with each device. Primary outcomes were ventilation rates and peak airway pressures. We also measured average tidal volume, gastric inflation volume, minute ventilation and inspiratory:expiratory (I:E) ratio, and compared our results to the American Heart Association standards (2005 edition).ResultsWe observed statistically significant differences between the SMART BAG and the traditional bag-valve-mask for respiratory rate (12 v. 14 breaths/min), peak airway pressure (15.6 v. 18.9 cm H(2)O), gastric inflation (239.6 v. 1598.4 mL), minute ventilation (7980 v. 8775 mL), and I:E ratio (1.3 v. 1.1). Average tidal volume was similar with both devices (679.6 v. 672.2 mL).ConclusionThe SMART BAG(R) provided ventilation performance that was more consistent with American Heart Association guidelines and delivered similar tidal volumes when compared with ventilation with a traditional bag-valve-mask resuscitator.

16 keywords...

hide…