“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

IF 1.5 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Open Access Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-09-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S520921
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:手动通气是紧急医疗服务(EMS)成员的一项关键技能。然而,在正确的通气率和潮气量方面是具有挑战性的,并且可能存在通气不足和过度通气的严重不良影响。测量通气质量并引入实时反馈可能是优化人工通气的有效方法。方法:回顾性分析143名高级急救技术人员质量管理项目资料。他们在没有任何反馈系统的情况下对插管的成人假人进行了两分钟的袋式通气,然后使用Real BVM Help®设备进行了两分钟的通气。确定了通风率和容积及其在正确/推荐范围内的分配。结果:使用反馈装置时,正确应用通气率提高了21%(未使用时为63.6%,使用反馈装置时为84.6%;p®,使用时为415.5±33.1 mL。结论:我们的数据表明,当使用通风反馈装置时,通气率和通气量有显著改善。这项人体模型研究表明,通风反馈装置对EMS成员的使用是有益的,但我们的发现必须在现实生活条件下进一步验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of "Real BVM Help" for Improving Manual Ventilation Quality in the Prehospital Setting: A Before-After Manikin Study.

Evaluation of "Real BVM Help" for Improving Manual Ventilation Quality in the Prehospital Setting: A Before-After Manikin Study.

Evaluation of "Real BVM Help" for Improving Manual Ventilation Quality in the Prehospital Setting: A Before-After Manikin Study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Open Access Emergency Medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信