Lilach Gavish, Shimon Firman, Daniel Fernando Orjuela Cruz, Anat Tovim, S David Gertz, Roger Andres Gomez Barrantes, Dina Velitsky, Angelika Erport, Joel Shapiro, Chloe Mimouni, Arik Eisenkraft, Reuven Pizov
{"title":"经验有限的实习生在胡须患者插管前通气中使用Bag-Valve-Guedel适配器优于标准面罩:前瞻性对照交叉临床试验。","authors":"Lilach Gavish, Shimon Firman, Daniel Fernando Orjuela Cruz, Anat Tovim, S David Gertz, Roger Andres Gomez Barrantes, Dina Velitsky, Angelika Erport, Joel Shapiro, Chloe Mimouni, Arik Eisenkraft, Reuven Pizov","doi":"10.1016/j.acepjo.2024.100035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Ventilation of bearded patients using the standard face mask (FM) is often difficult, particularly in field settings and mass casualty events. The current study compares the effectiveness of a novel Bag-Valve-Guedel Adaptor (BVGA) with the standard FM when applied to anesthetized patients by anesthesiology trainees with limited experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Male patients scheduled for elective surgery (American Society of Anesthesiology physical score 1-2) were recruited for this prospective, randomized, cross-over trial. Beard length was categorized as <0.5 cm (none/stubble), 0.5 to 1 cm, 1 to 5 cm, or ≥5 cm. Anesthetized patients were ventilated by anesthesiology trainees using the BVGA and an FM. The main outcome included end-tidal CO<sub>2</sub>, expiratory tidal volume (tidal volume of predicted body weight), and user evaluation (comfort, physical demand, and tiredness). The role of the level of expertise was evaluated by comparing data from the present study with those of a previous study performed by attending anesthesiologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty men (mean ± SD, age, 37 ± 17 years; body mass index, 25 ± 3 kg/m<sup>2</sup>), of whom 30 had beards, were enrolled. For the BVGA, ventilation parameters were found to be superior to the FM (BVGA vs FM: end-tidal CO<sub>2</sub> [mm Hg], 34.3 ± 4.9 vs 26.6 ± 5.8, <i>P</i> < .001; expiratory tidal volume [mL/kg predicted body weight], 7.9 ± 2.5 vs 6.3 ± 2.8, <i>P</i> = .003). The BVGA was graded as more comfortable and less physically demanding by 96% to 100% of trainees. The level of expertise of the anesthesiologist (trainee vs attending [additional n = 61 patients]) and the presence of a beard were found to be significant factors for ventilation with the FM but not with the BVGA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BVGA provides more effective and convenient ventilation than the FM for ventilation even when applied by anesthesia trainees. Its use can be of particular value in bearded subjects or in a setting where the use of supraglottic airway devices is limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":"6 1","pages":"100035"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11852698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Superiority of the Bag-Valve-Guedel Adaptor Over the Standard Face Mask for Preintubation Ventilation of Bearded Patients by Trainees With Limited Experience: Prospective Controlled Cross-Over Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Lilach Gavish, Shimon Firman, Daniel Fernando Orjuela Cruz, Anat Tovim, S David Gertz, Roger Andres Gomez Barrantes, Dina Velitsky, Angelika Erport, Joel Shapiro, Chloe Mimouni, Arik Eisenkraft, Reuven Pizov\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acepjo.2024.100035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Ventilation of bearded patients using the standard face mask (FM) is often difficult, particularly in field settings and mass casualty events. The current study compares the effectiveness of a novel Bag-Valve-Guedel Adaptor (BVGA) with the standard FM when applied to anesthetized patients by anesthesiology trainees with limited experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Male patients scheduled for elective surgery (American Society of Anesthesiology physical score 1-2) were recruited for this prospective, randomized, cross-over trial. Beard length was categorized as <0.5 cm (none/stubble), 0.5 to 1 cm, 1 to 5 cm, or ≥5 cm. Anesthetized patients were ventilated by anesthesiology trainees using the BVGA and an FM. The main outcome included end-tidal CO<sub>2</sub>, expiratory tidal volume (tidal volume of predicted body weight), and user evaluation (comfort, physical demand, and tiredness). The role of the level of expertise was evaluated by comparing data from the present study with those of a previous study performed by attending anesthesiologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty men (mean ± SD, age, 37 ± 17 years; body mass index, 25 ± 3 kg/m<sup>2</sup>), of whom 30 had beards, were enrolled. For the BVGA, ventilation parameters were found to be superior to the FM (BVGA vs FM: end-tidal CO<sub>2</sub> [mm Hg], 34.3 ± 4.9 vs 26.6 ± 5.8, <i>P</i> < .001; expiratory tidal volume [mL/kg predicted body weight], 7.9 ± 2.5 vs 6.3 ± 2.8, <i>P</i> = .003). The BVGA was graded as more comfortable and less physically demanding by 96% to 100% of trainees. The level of expertise of the anesthesiologist (trainee vs attending [additional n = 61 patients]) and the presence of a beard were found to be significant factors for ventilation with the FM but not with the BVGA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BVGA provides more effective and convenient ventilation than the FM for ventilation even when applied by anesthesia trainees. Its use can be of particular value in bearded subjects or in a setting where the use of supraglottic airway devices is limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"100035\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11852698/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acepjo.2024.100035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acepjo.2024.100035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:使用标准面罩(FM)对有胡须的患者进行通气通常很困难,特别是在现场环境和大规模伤亡事件中。本研究比较了经验有限的麻醉学培训生在麻醉患者中应用新型袋-阀- guedel适配器(BVGA)和标准FM的有效性。方法:这项前瞻性、随机、交叉试验招募了计划择期手术的男性患者(美国麻醉学会物理评分1-2)。胡须长度分为2、呼气潮气量(预测体重的潮气量)和用户评价(舒适度、生理需求和疲劳程度)。通过比较本研究的数据和由主治麻醉师进行的先前研究的数据来评估专业水平的作用。结果:男性40例(平均±SD,年龄37±17岁;体重指数为25±3 kg/m2),其中30人留胡子。对于BVGA,通气参数优于FM (BVGA vs FM:潮末CO2 [mm Hg], 34.3±4.9 vs 26.6±5.8,P < .001;呼气潮气量[mL/kg预测体重],分别为7.9±2.5 vs 6.3±2.8,P = 0.003)。96%到100%的受训者认为BVGA更舒适,体力要求更低。麻醉师的专业水平(实习医师与主治医师[额外n = 61例患者])和胡须的存在被发现是FM通气的重要因素,而BVGA通气则不是。结论:BVGA通气比FM通气更有效、方便。它的使用在有胡须的受试者或在限制声门上气道设备使用的环境中具有特别的价值。
Superiority of the Bag-Valve-Guedel Adaptor Over the Standard Face Mask for Preintubation Ventilation of Bearded Patients by Trainees With Limited Experience: Prospective Controlled Cross-Over Clinical Trial.
Objectives: Ventilation of bearded patients using the standard face mask (FM) is often difficult, particularly in field settings and mass casualty events. The current study compares the effectiveness of a novel Bag-Valve-Guedel Adaptor (BVGA) with the standard FM when applied to anesthetized patients by anesthesiology trainees with limited experience.
Methods: Male patients scheduled for elective surgery (American Society of Anesthesiology physical score 1-2) were recruited for this prospective, randomized, cross-over trial. Beard length was categorized as <0.5 cm (none/stubble), 0.5 to 1 cm, 1 to 5 cm, or ≥5 cm. Anesthetized patients were ventilated by anesthesiology trainees using the BVGA and an FM. The main outcome included end-tidal CO2, expiratory tidal volume (tidal volume of predicted body weight), and user evaluation (comfort, physical demand, and tiredness). The role of the level of expertise was evaluated by comparing data from the present study with those of a previous study performed by attending anesthesiologists.
Results: Forty men (mean ± SD, age, 37 ± 17 years; body mass index, 25 ± 3 kg/m2), of whom 30 had beards, were enrolled. For the BVGA, ventilation parameters were found to be superior to the FM (BVGA vs FM: end-tidal CO2 [mm Hg], 34.3 ± 4.9 vs 26.6 ± 5.8, P < .001; expiratory tidal volume [mL/kg predicted body weight], 7.9 ± 2.5 vs 6.3 ± 2.8, P = .003). The BVGA was graded as more comfortable and less physically demanding by 96% to 100% of trainees. The level of expertise of the anesthesiologist (trainee vs attending [additional n = 61 patients]) and the presence of a beard were found to be significant factors for ventilation with the FM but not with the BVGA.
Conclusion: The BVGA provides more effective and convenient ventilation than the FM for ventilation even when applied by anesthesia trainees. Its use can be of particular value in bearded subjects or in a setting where the use of supraglottic airway devices is limited.