401 Ventilation Parameters during Resuscitation: Comparison of two Different Devices in a Mannequin Model with and without Distraction

• Published in: Archives of disease in childhood 2012-10, Vol.97 (Suppl 2), p.A118-A118
• Main Authors: Gupta, N, Thio, M, Dawson, JA, Kamlin, COF, Schmoelzer, GM, Davis, PG
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Manometers; Ventilation
• ISSN: 0003-9888; 1468-2044
• DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2012-302724.0401

Background and Aims Positive pressure ventilation is a common intervention in neonatal resuscitation. Distraction, type of device and experience may influence performance. Studies have not included self-inflating bags (SIB) equipped with a PIP manometer and expiratory PEEP valve. We aimed to compare clinicians’ ability to ventilate a mannequin using a SIB with additional manometers against a T-piece (TP), with and without distraction. Method 50 medical and nursing staff were tested using standarised case scenarios with a leak free intubated mannequin. Participants targeted PIP 30 cmH2O, PEEP 5 cmH2O, inflation rate (IR) 60 inflations/minute with both devices in randomised order. We analysed PIP, PEEP, IR, expired tidal volume (TVe), professional group and compared devices during baseline and 3 minutes of distraction. Results 12,981 inflations were analysed. Mean (SD) ventilation parameters are shown in table. Abstract 401 Table 1 Parameter Baseline Distraction TP SIB TP SIB PIP 29.3 (0.6) 29.0 (2.3) 29.3 (0.7) 28.9 (3.5) PEEP 4.2 (0.6) 5.5 (0.9) 4.2 (0.6) 5.5 (0.9) IR 53.6 (10.3) 56.6 (11.7) 53 (13) 56.2 (13.5) TVe 10.2 (1.8) 9.7 (0.9) 10.3 (1.9) 9.6 (1.5) When analysed by operator, more variation was observed in IR (P=0.029) and TVe (P=0.002) with SIB during distraction. Conclusions Clinicians’ general performance when using a SIB where PIP and PEEP are displayed is comparable to a T-Piece, however more variation in IR and TVe occurs under distraction. This may be relevant in a real resuscitation.