Surgical mask-to-mouth ventilation as an alternative ventilation technique during CPR: A crossover randomized controlled trial
1
Issued Date
2023-10-01
Resource Type
ISSN
07356757
eISSN
15328171
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85166509619
Pubmed ID
37536087
Journal Title
American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume
72
Start Page
158
End Page
163
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
American Journal of Emergency Medicine Vol.72 (2023) , 158-163
Suggested Citation
Tangpaisarn T., Chaiyakot N., Saenpan K., Sriphrom S., Owattanapanich N., Kotruchin P., Phungoen P. Surgical mask-to-mouth ventilation as an alternative ventilation technique during CPR: A crossover randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Emergency Medicine Vol.72 (2023) , 158-163. 163. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2023.07.046 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/88315
Title
Surgical mask-to-mouth ventilation as an alternative ventilation technique during CPR: A crossover randomized controlled trial
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Introduction: Chest compression with rescue breathing improves outcomes in cardiac arrest. However, the efficacy of rescue breathing through surgical masks has not been investigated. Objective: We aimed to compare the tidal volume generated by mouth-to-mouth ventilation (MMV) with that generated by surgical mask-to-mouth ventilation (SMV), mouth-to-surgical mask ventilation (MSV), and surgical mask-to-surgical mask ventilation (SSV) in a manikin. Methods: A crossover randomized controlled trial was conducted in 42 medical personnel volunteers randomly assigned to perform four ventilation techniques: MMV (no protective equipment), SMV (participant wearing a mask), MSV (manikin wearing a mask), and SSV, (both participant and manikin wearing a mask). The average tidal volume and the proportion of adequate ventilation, evaluated using a manikin, were compared across different ventilation methods. Results: The average tidal volume of MMV (828 ± 278 ml) was significantly higher than those of the MSV (648 ± 250 ml, P < 0.001) and SSV (466 ± 301 ml, P < 0.001), but not SMV (744 ± 288 ml, P = 0.054). Adequate ventilation was achieved in 144/168 (85.7%) cases in the MMV group, a proportion significantly higher than in the SMV (77.4%, P = 0.02), MSV (66.7%, P < 0.001) and SSV (39.3%, P < 0.001) groups. The willingness to perform SMV was higher than that to perform MMV. Conclusions: MMV resulted in a superior average tidal volume when compared to both MSV and SSV. However, SMV achieved a comparable average tidal volume to MMV.