ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2018
To intubate or not: ventilation is the question. A manikin-based observational study.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ventilation feedback device for manual ventilation in simulated respiratory arrest: a crossover manikin study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2019Trial
- Article
- Effects of Bag Mask Ventilation and Advanced Airway Management on Adherence to Ventilation Recommendations and Chest Compression Fraction: A Prospective Randomized Simulator-Based Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a continuous debate concerning the superiority of endotracheal intubation on bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation in patients with cardiac arrest. In this manikin-based observational study, we evaluate and compare the performance of manual ventilation through a facemask (BVM) and an endotracheal tube (ETT).
methodsOne hundred and forty healthcare providers were instructed to manually ventilate a manikin as they would do for a 75 kg adult patient in respiratory arrest. Each one was ventilating both through a facemask and an ETT for a 5 min period in a random order. Ventilatory parameters were measured by the ASL 5000 lung simulator and ventilation performance was analysed using a sliding window method published in a previous study to assess accurately ventilation efficiency.
resultsThe mean ventilation rate was high whatever the technique used (24 bpm). A weak relationship between manual ventilation performance and the type of interface used was observed (p=0.0484). The overall rate of adequate ventilation was low even if we noticed a slight improvement when ventilating through an ETT (13.21% vs 7.5% of adequate ventilation). However, the rate of hyperventilation did not differ between mask and tube (79% vs 77%). A significant relationship is observed between professional category, the size of the hand squeezing the bag and manual ventilation performance (p<0.05).
conclusionWhatever the interface used, healthcare professionals are still struggling to perform manual ventilation efficiently according to international guidelines. Ventilation with an ETT does not prove to be significantly more efficient than with a facemask. It would be therefore important to recentre the debate on controlling ventilatory parameters with current devices. Focusing on training may maximise manual ventilation efficiency and minimise the loss of time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.