• M Simmons, D Deao, L Moon, K Peters, and S Cavanaugh.
• School of Respiratory Therapy, York College and York Hospital, PA, USA.
• Resp Care. 1995 Jun 1; 40 (6): 618-23.

UnlabelledDue to the fear of disease transmission, the practice of mouth-to-mouth (M-M) rescue breathing is rarely performed; to address this concern, many types of CPR barrier devices have been developed. These include bag-valve-mask devices, mouth-to-mask devices, and face shields (FS). The purpose of this study was to measure the volumes delivered during mouth-to-face shield (M-FS) breathing, to measure the back pressure and calculate the resistance to flow through their 1-way valves, and to test for backward leak of gas through the valves.MethodsThree FS brands were evaluated: Kiss of Life (KOL), MicroSHIELD (Micro) and Res-Cue Key (RCK). Volume delivered during M-M and M-FS breathing was evaluated by 10 rescuers who used the devices while performing rescue breathing on a CPR mannequin. Back pressure was measured and resistance calculated by directing airflow through the 1-way valves. Backward leak was evaluated by measuring the O2 concentration at the rescuer side of the valve while 100% O2 was directed toward the patient side of the valve. Differences among the brands were evaluated using analysis of variance.ResultsThe mean (SD) values for volumes in L were: M-M 1.00 (0.25), Micro 0.77 (0.20), RCK 0.64 (0.10), and KOL 0.24 (0.11). Mean values for back pressure in cm H2O at 50 L/min were Micro 16.7 (1.29), KOL 7.22 (0.13), and RCK 2.15 (0.16). Significant backward leak only occurred with RCK.ConclusionNot one of the FSs tested met all of the requirements suggested by the American Heart Association and by the International Standards Organization.

15 keywords...

hide…