Mario Krammel, Daniel Grassmann, Lukas Heinrich, Roman Brock, Andrea Kornfehl, Nikolaus Pagitz, Karolina Valentova, Christoph Veigl, Sabine Heider, Michael Girsa, Patrick Aigner, Thomas Hamp, Sebastian Schnaubelt
{"title":"“真实BVM帮助”对院前人工通气质量改善的评价:一项前后人体研究","authors":"Mario Krammel, Daniel Grassmann, Lukas Heinrich, Roman Brock, Andrea Kornfehl, Nikolaus Pagitz, Karolina Valentova, Christoph Veigl, Sabine Heider, Michael Girsa, Patrick Aigner, Thomas Hamp, Sebastian Schnaubelt","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S520921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Manual ventilation is a critical skill for emergency medical service (EMS) members. However, it is challenging in terms of correct ventilation rates and tidal volumes, with potentially severe adverse effects of hypo- and hyperventilation. Measuring the quality and involving real-time feedback may be effective in optimizing of manual ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data acquired retrospectively from a quality management project in 143 advanced emergency medical technicians were included. They performed bag ventilations on an intubated adult manikin for two minutes without any feedback system, and then another two minutes with the Real BVM Help<sup>®</sup> device. Ventilation rates and volumes and their allocation in correct/recommended ranges were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With the feedback device, correctly applied ventilation rates increased by 21% (63.6% in the correct range without vs 84.6% with the feedback device; p<0.001), and ventilation volumes improved by 41% (27% in the correct range without vs 68% with the feedback device; p<0.001). Without the device, the average ventilation rate was 10.5 ±3.1/minute, compared to 9.5 ±1.9/minute with the device. Ventilation volumes amounted to 370.6 ±84 mL without Real BVM Help<sup>®</sup>, while when using it, 415.5 ±33.1 mL was noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data demonstrate significant improvements in ventilation rates and volumes when using a ventilation feedback device. This manikin study suggests a ventilation feedback device being beneficial for the use by EMS members, but our findings must be further validated in real-life conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"257-265"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435499/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of \\\"Real BVM Help\\\" for Improving Manual Ventilation Quality in the Prehospital Setting: A Before-After Manikin Study.\",\"authors\":\"Mario Krammel, Daniel Grassmann, Lukas Heinrich, Roman Brock, Andrea Kornfehl, Nikolaus Pagitz, Karolina Valentova, Christoph Veigl, Sabine Heider, Michael Girsa, Patrick Aigner, Thomas Hamp, Sebastian Schnaubelt\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OAEM.S520921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Manual ventilation is a critical skill for emergency medical service (EMS) members. However, it is challenging in terms of correct ventilation rates and tidal volumes, with potentially severe adverse effects of hypo- and hyperventilation. Measuring the quality and involving real-time feedback may be effective in optimizing of manual ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data acquired retrospectively from a quality management project in 143 advanced emergency medical technicians were included. They performed bag ventilations on an intubated adult manikin for two minutes without any feedback system, and then another two minutes with the Real BVM Help<sup>®</sup> device. Ventilation rates and volumes and their allocation in correct/recommended ranges were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With the feedback device, correctly applied ventilation rates increased by 21% (63.6% in the correct range without vs 84.6% with the feedback device; p<0.001), and ventilation volumes improved by 41% (27% in the correct range without vs 68% with the feedback device; p<0.001). Without the device, the average ventilation rate was 10.5 ±3.1/minute, compared to 9.5 ±1.9/minute with the device. Ventilation volumes amounted to 370.6 ±84 mL without Real BVM Help<sup>®</sup>, while when using it, 415.5 ±33.1 mL was noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data demonstrate significant improvements in ventilation rates and volumes when using a ventilation feedback device. This manikin study suggests a ventilation feedback device being beneficial for the use by EMS members, but our findings must be further validated in real-life conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"257-265\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435499/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S520921\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S520921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of "Real BVM Help" for Improving Manual Ventilation Quality in the Prehospital Setting: A Before-After Manikin Study.
Background: Manual ventilation is a critical skill for emergency medical service (EMS) members. However, it is challenging in terms of correct ventilation rates and tidal volumes, with potentially severe adverse effects of hypo- and hyperventilation. Measuring the quality and involving real-time feedback may be effective in optimizing of manual ventilation.
Methods: Data acquired retrospectively from a quality management project in 143 advanced emergency medical technicians were included. They performed bag ventilations on an intubated adult manikin for two minutes without any feedback system, and then another two minutes with the Real BVM Help® device. Ventilation rates and volumes and their allocation in correct/recommended ranges were determined.
Results: With the feedback device, correctly applied ventilation rates increased by 21% (63.6% in the correct range without vs 84.6% with the feedback device; p<0.001), and ventilation volumes improved by 41% (27% in the correct range without vs 68% with the feedback device; p<0.001). Without the device, the average ventilation rate was 10.5 ±3.1/minute, compared to 9.5 ±1.9/minute with the device. Ventilation volumes amounted to 370.6 ±84 mL without Real BVM Help®, while when using it, 415.5 ±33.1 mL was noted.
Conclusion: Our data demonstrate significant improvements in ventilation rates and volumes when using a ventilation feedback device. This manikin study suggests a ventilation feedback device being beneficial for the use by EMS members, but our findings must be further validated in real-life conditions.