Use of a novel pedal-operated compressor is non-inferior to the use of a standard hand-compressed bag-valve mask.

BACKGROUND: The standard bag-valve mask (BVM) used universally requires that a single healthcare practitioner affix the mask to the face with 1 hand while compressing a self-inflating bag with the second hand. Studies have demonstrated that creating a 2-handed seal (with 2 healthcare practitioners) is superior. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of a novel single-practitioner BVM device that uses a foot pedal as the bag compressor, allowing both hands to be available for the seal to facilitate delivery of appropriate tidal volumes during single-practitioner resuscitation. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over study. Participants with various BVM ventilation experience performed 2 minutes of metronome-guided BVM ventilation using a standard BVM and the pedal-operated compressor on a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Analysis examining differences in mean tidal volume delivered was conducted using a regression model that adjusted for covariates. A secondary analysis using a series of Wilcoxon tests was conducted to compare differences in the additional out-of-range sensed breaths metrics to compare differences by prior BVM ventilation experience. RESULTS: A total of 58 subjects participated. The pedal-operated compressor unadjusted mean tidal volume delivered was 446.5 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 425.9-467.1) compared with 340.6 mL (95% CI, 312.2-369.0) by standard BVM (mean change, 105.9 mL [95% CI, 71.2-140.6]; P < .001). When modeling a generalized estimation equation regression model, standard BVM ventilation provided a mean difference of 105.9 mL less than pedal-operated compressor ventilation after adjusting for covariates (P = 0.01). For the secondary outcome, the pedal-operated compressor did have a significantly lower median number of out-of-range breaths (median, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 1-11.5) compared with the standard device (median, 13.5; IQR, 6-19; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a novel pedal-operated compressor may allow a single healthcare practitioner, regardless of prior experience, to deliver consistent, appropriate tidal volumes with more ease compared with the standard BVM during manual respiratory resuscitation.

Titration of Parameters in Shared Ventilation With a Portable Ventilator.

BACKGROUND: Dual-patient, single-ventilator protocols (ie, protocols to ventilate 2 patients with a single conventional ventilator) may be required in times of crisis. This study demonstrates a means to titrate peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), PEEP, and [Formula: see text] for test lungs ventilated via a dual-patient, single-ventilator circuit. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted using a ventilator connected to 2 test lungs. Changes in PIP, PEEP, and [Formula: see text] were made to the experimental lung, while no changes were made to the control lung. Measurements were obtained simultaneously from each test lung. PIP was titrated using 3D-printed resistors added to the inspiratory circuit. PEEP was titrated using expiratory circuit tubing with an attached manual PEEP valve. [Formula: see text] was titrated by using a splitter added to the ventilator tubing. RESULTS: PIP, PEEP, and [Formula: see text] were reliably and incrementally titratable in the experimental lung, with some notable but manageable changes in pressure and [Formula: see text] documented in the control lung during these titrations. Similar results were measured in lungs with identical and different compliances. CONCLUSIONS: Pressures and [Formula: see text] can be reliably adjusted when utilizing a dual-patient, single-ventilator circuit with simple, low-cost modifications to the circuit. This innovation could potentially be lifesaving in a resource-limited or crisis setting. Understanding the interactions of these circuits is imperative for making their use safer.