ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the effect of different ventilation modes on the ventilation rate and prognosis in patients with cardiac arrest after advanced airway placement. Methods Based on the national database of emergency cardiac arrest treatment, patients treated with advanced airway placement during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were enrolled in PUMCH Emergency Department from December 2013 to June 2018. The physiological parameters, such as electrocardiograph waveform, pulse oximetry plethysmographic waveform and capnography, were recorded at least 18 minutes. The demographic data and resuscitation parameters were collected. Waveform capnography was used for calculating ventilation rate (VR) and the VR between 8 to 12 breaths/min was defined as the qualified ventilation rate (QVR). According to the ventilation modes, patients were divided into the bag-mask group (BMG) and mechanical ventilation group (MVG). According to the VR, patients in the mechanical ventilation group were divided into two subgroups, the high-frequency ventilation subgroup (HFV subgroup) with the VR more than 20 breaths/min and the low-frequency VR subgroup (LFV subgroup) with the VR less than 20 breaths/min. VR, the qualified ventilation rate ratio (QVRR), the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and 24-h and 7-day survival were compared between the two groups and subgroups. Result A total of 90 patients were enrolled in the analysis with 22 patients in the bag-mask group and 68 patients in the mechanical ventilation group. The total rate of ROSC was 35.6％, 24-h survival was 1.1％ and 7-day survival was 0. The first 18 minutes ventilation data were collected and added up to 1620 min. The median VR was 16.5 (12.0, 26.0) breaths/min and the QVRR was 30％. Compared with the mechanical ventilation group, the VR in the bag-mask group were lower (10 breaths/min vs 21 breaths/min) and the QVRR was higher (88.9％ vs 11.5％). The ROSC, 24-h survival and 7-day survival had no statistical differences between the two groups. In the mechanical ventilation group, the ratio of VR more than 20 breaths/min was 52.6％. Between the two subgroups, there was no statistical difference in ROSC, 24-h survival and 7-day survival. Conclusions Compared with the mechanical ventilation during CPR, the VR is lower with bag-mask ventilation, and the QVRR is higher. But there was no statistical difference on the outcomes. There was no difference on the outcomes between the two mechanical ventilation subgroups.
ABSTRACT
Antecedentes: No hay estudios publicados de pacientes ventilados manualmente, solo algunos reportes de caso. Metodología: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo retrospectivo de diecinueve casos de pacientes con intubación endotraqueal y ventilados manualmente con el objetivo de determinar sus características clínicas, de febrero a mayo 2015 en el Hospital Roosevelt. Resultados: Trece de 19 (63%) eran mujeres, con rango de edad entre 19 y 78 años (promedio 49 años). Se ventilaron 12/19 (63%) en la emergencia, 6/19 (32%) en encamamiento. El motivo de consulta más frecuente fue insuficiencia respiratoria con 7 casos. Las enfermedades de base más frecuentes fueron hipertensión arterial y diabetes mellitus con 8 y 5 casos respectivamente. El 19% de los pacientes que fueron extubados volvieron a ser intubado. Diez de 19 (53%) falleció, 6/19 (32%) egresaron vivos, 2/19 (10%) continuaron hospitalizados y 1/19 (5%) tubo egreso contraindicado. Una escala de Glasgow menor a 8 puntos fue un factor de riesgo para morir (P 0.0063, OR27). Conclusiones: La mortalidad asociada a ventilación manual fue de 58%. Un Glasgow menos a 8 puntos representa 26 veces mayor riesgo a morir...(AU)
Background: There are no published studies of patients ventilated manually, only a few case reports. Methodology: A retrospective study of nineteen cases of patients with endotracheal intubation was performed manually ventilated in order to determine their clinical characteristics, from February to May 2015 in the Roosevelt Hospital. Results: Thirteen of 19 (63%) were females, with ages ranging from 19 to 78 years (mean 49 years), 12/19 (63%) were ventilated in emergency, 6/19 (32%) in bedridden. The most frequent reason for consultation was respiratory failure in 7 cases. Diseases were more frequent basis hypertension and diabetes mellitus with 8 and 5 cases respectively. 19% of patients were extubated again be intubated. Ten of 19 (53%) died, 6/19 (32%) discharged alive, 2/19 (10%) remained hospitalized and 1/19 (5%) contraindicated discharge tube. A smaller scale Glasgow 8 points was a risk factor for death (P 0.0063, OR 27). Conclusions: The mortality associated with manual ventilation was 58%. A Glasgow least 8 points represents 26 times more likely to die...(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Epidemiology, Descriptive , Glasgow Outcome Scale , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Guatemala , Intubation, Intratracheal/trendsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the modified two-person cardiopulmonary resuscitation method (MM) (the first resuscitator performs chest compressions and squeezes the bag of bag-valve-mask (BVM) during pauses of compression, and the second resuscitator uses two hands to provide an open airway) using the conventional two-person cardiopulmonary resuscitation method (CM). METHODS: This simulation study used a manikin and a cross-over execution design and included 102 participants. After practice of CM and MM, participants were randomly assigned a partner. Each pair of participants performed the 2-CPR for five cycles using both methods alternately at random. All data were recorded in a personal computer and analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 510 cycles each of the CM and MM were analyzed. The MM generated a higher mean tidal volume (TV) (791.2 ml versus 563.8 ml, P<0.001) and more frequent visible chest ventilation (92.1% versus 64.7%, P<0.001). For the inexpert resuscitator group (50; 49%), the MM generated more frequent visible chest ventilation (88.6% versus 34.0%, P<0.001) and ventilation with an adequate TV (43.6% versus 32.0%, P<0.001). No significant difference in compression rate, depth, hand position, and release, and minimal difference of hands off time (0.5s) were observed between the two methods. CONCLUSION: The CM could not easily provide sufficient visible chest rise and might be a poor ventilation option for inexpert BVM resuscitators. The MM can be useful as an alternative method and preferable to the CM for inexpert BVM resuscitators.