Tangpaisarn T.Chaiyakot N.Saenpan K.Sriphrom S.Owattanapanich N.Kotruchin P.Phungoen P.Mahidol University2023-08-132023-08-132023-10-01American Journal of Emergency Medicine Vol.72 (2023) , 158-16307356757https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/88315Introduction: 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.MedicineArticleSCOPUS10.1016/j.ajem.2023.07.0462-s2.0-851665096191532817137536087