ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Measuring ventilation in pediatric simulations using a novel adjustable bag-valve-mask resuscitator: a comparative study with the Butterfly BVM and the traditional Ambu bag.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Ventilation using bag-valve-mask (BVM) resuscitators is commonly associated with excessive ventilation volumes and rates, even among trained providers. This can lead to volutrauma, particularly in pediatric patients as lung volumes vary by age and weight. The Butterfly BVM is a novel, adjustable device designed to regulate volume, rate, and peak inspiratory pressure to promote safer ventilation. Objective: To compare minute ventilation (MV) and tidal volume (Vt) delivery using the Butterfly BVM versus a traditional BVM (Ambu Spur II) among interprofessional teams during simulated pediatric resuscitations. Methods: In this prospective simulation-based study, 42 participants (physicians, nurses, EMTs) provided manual ventilation to infant and adolescent mannequins using a traditional and Butterfly BVM. Primary outcome was MV delivery; secondary outcomes included Vt delivery and user feedback. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. Results: Participants were significantly more likely to deliver MV within target range using the Butterfly BVM (73.8 %) versus the traditional BVM (32.1 %; OR = 10.5, 95 % CI: 4.1-26.5; p < 0.0001). The Butterfly BVM also resulted in significantly lower average Vt (LSMean = -164.3 mL; p < 0.0001). Users found the device easy to use (69.0 %) and intuitive (73.8 %), citing its ability to decrease cognitive load and risk of overventilation. Conclusion: The Butterfly BVM significantly improves delivery of MV and Vt during simulated pediatric resuscitations compared to a traditional BVM. Its adjustable controls for respiratory parameters offer a promising solution to prevent volutrauma during pediatric ventilation. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings in real-world settings.
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.