Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31640797›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2019

Ventilation feedback device for manual ventilation in simulated respiratory arrest: a crossover manikin study.

Abdo Khoury, Alban De Luca, Fatimata S Sall, Lionel Pazart, Gilles Capellier

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Pathophysiology and Prevention of Manual-Ventilation-Induced Lung Injury (MVILI).Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abdo KhouryEmergency Medicine Physician, Department of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care, Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France. akhoury@chu-besancon.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7084-1508
Alban De LucaBiomedical Research Engineer, Clinical Investigation Centre Inserm CIC-1431, Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France.
Fatimata S SallClinical Research Engineer, Clinical Investigation Centre Inserm CIC-1431, Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France.
Lionel PazartMedical Coordinator, Clinical Investigation Centre Inserm CIC-1431, Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France.
Gilles CapellierEmergency Medicine Physician, Department of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care, Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France.
Inserm · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon · FR

Funding

BESANCON 000BPI FRANCE 000Conseil régional de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté 000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have shown that providing adequate ventilation during CPR is essential. While hypoventilation is often feared by most caregivers on the scene, the most critical problem remains hyperventilation. We developed a Ventilation Feedback Device (VFD) for manual ventilation which monitors ventilatory parameters and provides direct feedback about ventilation quality to the rescuer. This study aims to compare the quality of conventional manual ventilation to ventilation with VFD on a simulated respiratory arrest patient.

methodsForty healthcare providers were enrolled and instructed to ventilate a manikin simulating respiratory arrest. Participants were instructed to ventilate the manikin for 5 min with and without the VFD in random order. They were divided in two groups of 20 people, one group ventilating through a mask and the other through an endotracheal tube.

resultsVentilation with the VFD improved from 15 to 90% (p < 0.001) with the mask and from 15 to 85% (p < 0.001) with the endotracheal tube (ETT) by significantly reducing the proportion of hyperventilation. The mean ventilation rates and tidal volumes were in the recommended ranges in respectively 100% with the mask and 97.5% of participants with the ETT when using the VFD.

conclusionVFD improves the performance of manual ventilation by over 70% in different simulated scenarios. By providing the rescuer direct feedback and analysis of ventilatory parameters, this device can significantly improve ventilation while performing CPR and thus save lives.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Over StudiesFeedbackFemaleHeart ArrestHumansMaleManikinsRespiration, ArtificialTidal VolumeBag-valve-maskCardiac arrestManual ventilationVentilation feedback device

Identifiers

PMID31640797
PMCPMC6805533
OpenAlexW2981415418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.