Comparison of intraoral mask and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success and practitioners' workload assessments: A randomised crossover study.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Comparison of intraoral mask and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success and practitioners' workload assessments: A randomised crossover study.
Autorzy:: Alkan M; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Terme State Hospital, Samsun, Turkey.
Aytac I; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Guven Aytac B; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Unal H; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Denizli State Hospital, Denizli, Turkey.
Gursul B; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Lokman Hekim Akay Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Baskan S; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Postaci A; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Gogus N; Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.; Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Źródło:: International journal of clinical practice [Int J Clin Pract] 2021 Nov; Vol. 75 (11), pp. e14821. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Sep 14.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: 2022- : Mumbai : Hindawi
Original Publication: Esher [England] ; Bronxville, N.Y. : Medicom International, c1997-
MeSH Terms:: Masks*
Workload*
Cross-Over Studies ; Humans ; Respiration, Artificial ; Tidal Volume
References:: Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:827-848.
Gómez-Ríos M, Gaitini L, Matter I, Somri M. Guidelines and algorithms for managing the difficult airway. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2018;65:41-48.
Nielsen JR, Lim K-S. Increasing the scope on difficult airways: what about mask ventilation? Anesth Analg. 2019;129:e109.
Nørskov AK, Wetterslev J, Rosenstock CV, et al. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation using a systematic assessment of risk factors vs. existing practice-a cluster randomised clinical trial in 94,006 patients. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:296-308.
Foley LJ, Urdaneta F, Berkow L, et al. Difficult airway management in adult COVID-19 patients: statement by the Society of Airway Management. Anesth Analg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000005554.
Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, et al. Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120:323-352.
Hagberg C, Gabel JC, Connis R. Difficult Airway Society 2015 Guidelines for the Management of Unanticipated Difficult Intubation in Adults: Not Just Another Algorithm. Oxford University Press; 2015.
Soleimanpour H, Gholipouri C, Panahi JR, et al. Role of anesthesiology curriculum in improving bag-mask ventilation and intubation success rates of emergency medicine residents: a prospective descriptive study. BMC Emerg Med. 2011;11:1-6.
Sreekantha D, Saldanha RS, Krishnappa JG, Mehandale SG, Glen RRC, Prajna M. Predicting difficulties in mask ventilation using machine learning techniques. Paper presented at: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing, VLSI, Electrical Circuits and Robotics (DISCOVER); 2019.
Botes L, Jacobs J, Rademeyer R, Van der Merwe S, Van Heerden L, Diedericks B. The effect of different anaesthetic mask shapes on the anatomical dead space using infant, child and adult part-task trainers. South African J Anaesth Analg. 2018;24:145-147.
Gerstein NS, Carey MC, Braude DA, et al. Efficacy of facemask ventilation techniques in novice providers. J Clin Anesth. 2013;25:193-197.
Riggle JD, McCrory B, Wadman M, et al. Comparison of muscle exertion and fatigue between standard bag valve mask and NuMask. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 2012.
McCrory B, Lowndes BR, Thompson DL, et al. Workload comparison of intraoral mask to standard mask ventilation using a cadaver model. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 2012.
Nimmagadda U, Salem M, Hsu E, Knezevic NN. The NuMask® is as effective as the face mask in achieving maximal preoxygentation. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2016;23:605-609. PMID: 29939696.
Amack AJ, Barber GA, Ng PC, Smith TB, April MD. Comparison of ventilation with one-handed mask seal with an intraoral mask versus conventional cuffed face mask in a cadaver model: a randomized crossover trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69:12-17.
Bach JR, Saporito LR. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation interface adapted for postextubation continuous noninvasive ventilatory support. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94:e80-e83.
McCrory B, Lowndes BR, Thompson DL, et al. Crossover assessment of intraoral and cuffed ventilation by emergency responders. Mil Med. 2019;184:310-317.
Blake DF, Crowe M, Lindsay D, Brouff A, Mitchell SJ, Pollock NW. Comparison of tissue oxygenation achieved breathing oxygen from a demand valve with four different mask configurations. Diving Hyperb Med. 2018;48:209-217.
Nagappa M, Wong J, Singh M, Wong DT, Chung F. An update on the various practical applications of the STOP-Bang questionnaire in anesthesia, surgery, and perioperative medicine. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017;30:118-125.
Han R, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S, O'Reilly M. Grading scale for mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:267.
Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, eds. Advances in Psychology. Vol 52. Elsevier; 1988:139-183.
Coule P, Mazzoli A, Todaro J. 465: Comparison of a novel intra-oral mask (NuMask®) to standard mask ventilation using a cadaver model. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;3:S150-S151.
El-Orbany M, Woehlck HJ. Difficult mask ventilation. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1870-1880.
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20210909 Date Completed: 20211022 Latest Revision: 20211022
Update Code:: 20240105
DOI:: 10.1111/ijcp.14821
PMID:: 34499788
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Aim: Providing effective ventilation of the unconscious patient is an essential skill in every specialty dealing with airway management. In this randomised crossover study aimed to compare intraoral and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success of patients, practitioners' workload and anxiety assessments. Also we analysed potential risk factors of difficult mask ventilation for both masks.
Methods: In all, 24 anaesthesiology residents and 12 anaesthesiologists participated in the study. Each of the practitioners ventilated four patients with both masks at settled pressure and frequency. Practitioners rated their workload and anxiety related to masks with National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index score and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scale. Ventilation success was evaluated with Han scale, expiratory tidal volume and leak volume. We analysed potential risk factors of difficult mask ventilation with anthropometric characteristics and STOP-Bang score.
Results: Ventilation success rate was superior with intraoral mask comparing to classic face mask in terms of successful ventilation (P = .000) and tidal volume (P = .000). Leak volume in in intraoral mask ventilation was significantly lower than classic face mask (P = .000). Difficult mask ventilation risk factors for classic face mask were high weight (P = .011), neck circumference (95% CI, OR = 1.180, P = .002), Mallampati score (P = .029) and high risk of OSAS (P = .001). Difficult mask ventilation risk factors for intraoral mask were high body mass index (95% CI, OR 1.162 P = .006) and Mallampati score (P = .043). The anxiety ratings of practitioners were similar between two masks. The workload rating is higher with intraoral mask comparing to classic face mask.
Conclusion: Intraoral mask may be an effective alternative device for bag-valve mask ventilation.
(© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Informacja