Questionnaires analysis on present status of ventilation therapy in cardiopulmonary resuscitation in Chinese emergency physicians / 中国中西医结合急救杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To investigate the current practice of ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in Chinese emergency physicians. Methods Self-designed questionnaires were used to survey mainly the present situation of CPR ventilation practice performed by 800 physicians who participated in the Peking Union International Summit for Emergency Medicine from April 17th to 19th, 2015. Results A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed and 638 (79.75%) valid questionnaires were taken back; the responders joining the survey came from 29 provinces and regions, including Beijing, Hebei, Shandong, Guangdong, Liaoning, etc. There were 331 males and 307 females; 91.54% (584 responders) were emergency physicians and 77.90% (497 responders) came from tertiary hospitals, 17.55% (112 responders) came from the secondary hospitals. Regarding ventilation during CPR, 86.4% (551 responders) declared the patients was routinely given endo-tracheal intubation; after intubation, 25.8% (142 responders) adopted bag-mask ventilation, and 74.2% (409 responders) applied mechanical ventilation. When a ventilator was used, 301 (73.6%) responders used the volume controlled ventilation mode, 334 (81.7%) responders set the respiratory rate (RR) lower than 15 bpm, while 89.2% (365 responders) used the tidal volume set at a range of 400-500 mL. When adopted the flow triggering sensitivity, 79.7% (326 responders) set the sensitivity at 1-6 L/min, while 16.4% (67 responders) selected the default parameter, not adjusting the flow triggering parameter; when adopted the pressure triggering sensitivity, 75.1% (307 responders) set the sensitivity between -1 to -6 cmH2O (1 cmH2O = 0.098 kPa) and 20.3% (83 responders) selected the default value, not adjusting the pressure triggering parameter. When the mechanical ventilation (MV) was adopted, 84.8% (347 responders) declared often experiencing problems with MV, such as airway high peak pressure alarms [39.6% (162/409)], lower ventilation volume per minute alarms [24.9% (102/409)], higher respiratory frequency alarms [21.3% (87/409)], but only 67.2% (275 responders) would again adjust the ventilation mode related parameters and only 59.2% (242 responders) would observe the actual respiratory frequency. Conclusions With regards to artificial ventilation during CPR, the majority of emergency physicians tend to adopt endotracheal intubation and commonly use the volume controlled mode of mechanical ventilation; among the ventilator parameter setting, the RR is not strictly in accordance with the CPR guidelines, and most of the inspiration triggering sensitivity setting was too low, very easily to induce hyperventilation; simultaneously, the emergency physicians often neglect the practical RR; although there are many problems with ventilation such as frequent alarms, only 67.2% of the emergency physicians would again adjust the ventilation parameters.