Prehospital and disaster medicine
-
Prehosp Disaster Med · Jan 1992
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialInfant ventilation and oxygenation by basic life support providers: comparison of methods.
Little information is available in the performance of infant ventilation by basic life support (BLS) personnel. ⋯ For all subjects and those with a patent airway (n=36), there were no significant differences in the percentage of acceptable breaths produced by PBM (56+/-6) (mean+/-SEM; all subjects) and ABM (41+/-6.2) was significantly greater than M-Ma, with and without a patent airway. Although RR and the percentage of excessive breaths were not significantly different, the percentage of acceptable breaths and FiO 2 delivered with each ventilation method was significantly better in the patent airway group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
Gas-powered resuscitators (ventilators) designed to be used primarily for resuscitation should be basic and simple to use. They offer many advantages over manual methods of ventilation during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Portable ventilators intended for critical care transport require additional, more sophisticated features such as: adjustable pressure limiting valves, air-mixing, airway pressure gauge, independent tidal volume and rate controls, and a Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) valve. The performance of six gas-powered resuscitators/portable ventilators (TransPAC, Oxylog, Ambu Matic, ERA 2000, Uni-Vent, and MARS) was evaluated. ⋯ Each resuscitator tested failed to deliver the preset volumes and this must be considered during their use. Inspiratory pressure relief valves for all but one of the ventilators tested would not permit the delivery of adequate levels of ventilation in patients with low pulmonary compliance and/or high airway resistance.
-
Prehosp Disaster Med · Jan 1992
Comparative Study Clinical TrialEvaluation of a new cervical immobilization/extrication device.
A new cervical immobilization device (the Philadelphia Red E.M. Collar with Head Immobilizer/Stabilizer), has been introduced as an adjunct in extricating potentially neck-injured patients. This study compared the efficacy of immobilization using the collar to that of a short spine board. In addition, experienced EMS personnel rated the collar in simulated field situations. ⋯ The collar was significantly better than the short spine board in both lateral and rotational immobilization (p less than 0.001). There was no significant difference for flexion or extension (p greater than 0.05). The Red E.M. limited motion to a mean of 15 degrees or less in any direction. Ratings by EMS personnel for the device (mean+/- standard error) were: ease of application (sitting) 3.5+/-0.2, (supine) 2.7+/-0.2; ease of extrication 3.1+/-0.2; access to patient 3.4+/-0.2; storage 3.1+/-0.3; and overall utility 3.1+/-0.2.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)