Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Follow aarc on Twitter
  • Visit aarc on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

An Evaluation of Peak Inspiratory Pressure, Tidal Volume, and Ventilatory Frequency During Ventilation With a Neonatal Self-Inflating Bag Resuscitator

Mariana Almada Bassani, Francisco Mezzacappa Filho, Maria Regina de Carvalho Coppo and Sérgio Tadeu Martins Marba
Respiratory Care April 2012, 57 (4) 525-530; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01423
Mariana Almada Bassani
Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (CAISM), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Francisco Mezzacappa Filho
Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (CAISM), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Regina de Carvalho Coppo
Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (CAISM), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sérgio Tadeu Martins Marba
Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (CAISM), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the self-inflating bag is widely used in the hospital setting, variability of delivered ventilatory parameters is usually high, which might result in both hypoventilation and lung injury. The aims of this study were to assess possible sources of the high variability and to evaluate the adequacy of obtained values in relation to the recommended values for neonatal resuscitation.

METHODS: This was an experimental study in which 172 health professionals (physicians, resident physicians, physiotherapists, nurses, and nursing technicians) who work with neonatal intensive care manually ventilated a test lung (adjusted to simulate the lungs of an intubated term newborn) with a self-inflating bag in 5 different handling techniques, using 10, 5, 4, 3, and 2 fingers. Delivered values of peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), tidal volume (VT), and ventilatory frequency (f) were compared, taking into account the different handling modalities and professions by analysis of variance for repeated measures. Chi-square, the Friedman test and the Fisher exact tests were performed to compare the delivered and standard values.

RESULTS: PIP and VT were significantly affected by the handling technique, with higher values for a greater number of fingers used for ventilation. Profession also influenced VT and f significantly: physiotherapists tended to deliver higher volumes and lower rates. Nevertheless, we observed high variability of all studied ventilatory parameters and overall inadequacy of obtained values. Most volunteers delivered excessive pressures and volumes at insufficient ventilatory frequency.

CONCLUSIONS: Delivered values seem to depend on operators' individual and professional differences, as well as on the number of fingers used to compress the bag. However, from the clinical point of view, it is important to point out the high occurrence of inadequate delivered values, regardless of handling technique and profession.

  • cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • newborn infant
  • barotrauma
  • positive pressure respiration
  • pulmonary ventilation
  • tidal volume

Introduction

Self-inflating bags are widely used in the hospital setting, especially for emergency ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.1–3 When used adequately, positive-pressure ventilation is sufficient to resuscitate almost all of apneic or bradycardic newborns.2 However, it is well known that manual ventilation with self-inflating bags has limitations, and the literature has not yet established whether or not the benefits are worth the risks.2 There is evidence that the ventilatory parameters delivered with this device may be influenced by several factors such as circuit configuration and brand,4,5 the use of 1 or 2 hands to ventilate,4,6–11 and operator's hand size,4,7,12 profession,6,13 and experience.14 This may cause high variability of the absolute values of these parameters,11,15–18 causing delivery of either excessive or insufficient values. In the former case the risk for pulmonary injury (barotrauma and volutrauma) is increased, and in the latter there is a higher risk for hypoventilation.11 Both situations are potentially harmful to the newborn and might lead to a worse prognosis, longer hospital stay, and development of chronic lung disease.

The aim of this study was to evaluate how peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), tidal volume (VT), and ventilatory frequency (f) are affected by the number of fingers used to compress the self-inflating bag (handling technique) and the operator's profession. We also compared delivered values with those recommended for neonatal resuscitation, and examined the influence of profession and handling technique in the adequacy of the delivered values.

QUICK LOOK

Current knowledge

Manual ventilation using a self-inflating bag is a common procedure in neonatal intensive care. The optimum technique and monitoring of manual ventilation is unknown.

What this paper contributes to our knowledge

Regardless of technique or the operator's profession, high airway pressures and high volumes are delivered that were far outside the recommended range. During manual ventilation there is a high variability of delivered tidal volume, peak inspiratory pressure, and respiratory frequency.

Methods

This is an experimental study involving health professionals of 5 different groups (physicians, resident physicians, physiotherapists, nurses, and nursing technicians) who work at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (Center for Integral Attention to Women's Health, CAISM) of the University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. After reading and signing a written consent form, each subject was instructed to manually ventilate a test lung (Adult/Infant Ventilator Tester model VT-2, Bio-Tek, Winooski, Vermont) set with compliance (0.003 L/cm H2O) and resistance (200 cm H2O/L/min) levels to simulate the lungs of an intubated term newborn of approximately 3 kg. The test lung complies with the requirements of the American Society for Testing and Materials, F920–93.19 A new silicone neonatal self-inflating bag resuscitator (JG Moriya, São Paulo, Brazil) with maximal capacity of 300 mL was used for ventilation. This self-inflating bag was chosen for this study because it is currently the model most commonly used in our hospital. In these experiments, compressed gas source and reservoir bag were not used. The resuscitator is equipped with a pressure-relief valve set to activate at 40 cm H2O (according to the manufacturer), to prevent the administration of excessive pressures.

The trial setup was based on the method reported by Bassani et al11 In summary, all volunteers ventilated manually the test lung with all of the 5 different handling techniques, using 10 fingers (both hands), or only the dominant hand with either 5, 4, 3, or 2 fingers to compress the bag. A 1 min interval was allowed between each test condition. All volunteers were blind to their results during the trials, and the sequence of handling techniques was predetermined with a random number table.20 Delivered values of PIP, VT, and f recorded after approximately 5 ventilatory cycles were provided by each subject.

For each ventilatory parameter, 3 categories (high, adequate, and low) were defined based on standard guidelines for neonatal resuscitation. The ranges of values considered as adequate were: PIP 20–25 cm H2O,3,21 VT 24–30 mL (8–10 mL/kg considering a newborn of approximately 3 kg),22 and f 40–60 compressions/min.23 This study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

Statistical analysis was performed using software (SAS System for Windows, version 9.1.3, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). The effects of handling technique and profession on PIP, VT, and f were evaluated by analysis of variance for repeated measures, followed by contrast profile and the Tukey post hoc test. Chi-square, the Friedman test, and the Fisher exact test were used to compare delivered and recommended values, considering the different handling techniques and professions. A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

One hundred seventy-two volunteers of 5 different professional groups were recruited for this study. Fifteen (8.7%) were attending physicians, 28 (16.3%) were resident physicians in pediatrics or neonatology, 43 (25.0%) were physiotherapists, 30 (17.4%) were nurses, and 56 (32.6%) were nursing technicians.

The handling technique significantly affected PIP (P < .001) and VT (P = .043), but not f (P = .39). Post hoc analysis showed significant increase and decrease of PIP when using 10 fingers and 2 fingers, respectively, compared with the other techniques. Similar results were found for VT, for which the use of 2 hands (10 fingers) produced significant higher volumes, when compared to the use of one hand.

Profession had an isolated influence on VT (P < .001) and f (P < .001) (Table 1). Physiotherapists delivered significantly higher volumes than attending and resident physicians, and nursing technicians (P < .001), although the f values were lower, compared to all other professional groups (P < .001). Significant interaction between profession and handling technique was not observed for any of the ventilatory parameters.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Ventilatory Variables According to Handling Technique and Profession (n = 172)

More importantly, a large discrepancy between the delivered and the current guideline values was observed for all parameters. Regardless of profession or handling technique, 155 out of the 172 participants (ie, 88.4%) delivered excessive pressures (> 25 cm H2O), whereas 127 (73.8%) exceeded the recommended range of volume (> 30 mL) (Fig. 1). On the other hand, 85 volunteers (49.4%) ventilated at insufficient rates (< 40 breaths/min) (see Fig. 1). There were no significant effects of the handling techniques on the inadequacy of PIP (P = .55), VT (P = .09), and f (P = .13), regarding the categorized variables. The same was observed with relation to the effects of profession on PIP (P = .98) and VT (P = .051). This indicates that the great majority of participants of all professional groups delivered excessive pressures and volumes, independently of the number of fingers used for ventilation. However, a significant effect of profession was observed for f (P < .001). An insufficient number of delivered breaths was generated by most physiotherapists (81.4%), as opposed to nurses (53.3%), resident physicians (46.4%), and nursing technicians (35.7%), who achieved adequate rates of ventilation in a higher proportion. Among physicians we observed an equal proportion (26.7%) of participants who delivered adequate and low f values.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Percent distribution of categorized values of delivered peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), tidal volume (VT), and ventilatory frequency (f) during manual ventilation of test lung.

Despite the high pressures and volumes delivered by most volunteers, we observed a high variability of both ventilatory parameters. PIP ranged from 2.5 to 103.6 cm H2O, and VT from 4 to 96 mL. Ventilatory frequency also showed high variability: 4.3 to 54.05 compressions/min.

Discussion

Over the past 3 decades, evaluation of the self-inflating bag resuscitator has been the goal of a number of published studies, some of which focused on how the resuscitator handling may affect its performance and the potential clinical implications. However, most of these studies were directed to adult patients,4,6–9 and only a few of them addressed this aspect in newborns.11,24 Ganga-Zandzou et al24 and Bassani et al11 demonstrated that delivered peak pressures are higher when more fingers are used to compress the bag. Bassani et al11 observed that this relationship also occurs for VT, as shown in earlier studies that compared the use of 1 or 2 hands to simulate ventilation in adults.4,6–9 These observations are confirmed in the present study with a larger volunteer sample.

Rezende et al evaluated PIP, VT, and f, during ventilation with self-inflating bag in an analogue neonatal lung model,17 as well as in term and preterm newborn sheep.18 Both studies showed wide variability of delivered pressures and volumes, which frequently exceeded standard values for safe ventilation.17,18 The present study shows that the high variability does not seem to be an artifact due to restricted sample size, because it was still observed even with a considerably greater number of volunteers (n = 172). This is in agreement with the results of Roehr et al,25 in which high variability of PIP (2.7–58.9 cm H2O) and VT (1–14.6 mL) was observed in a sample of 120 volunteers during ventilation of a neonatal mannequin with a self-inflating bag.

We observed that approximately 88% and 74% of the participants delivered pressure (> 25 cm H2O) and volume (> 30 mL) values that are excessive for ventilation of a newborn. We also found that nearly half of the participants delivered breaths at insufficient rates (< 40 breaths/min), in contrast with the findings by Rezende at al,17,18 who showed good adequacy for f. This discrepancy is possibly due to differences in the volunteer population. Rezende et al17,18 studied a small group of experienced physicians, whereas we studied a larger sample of subjects from 5 different professions who work with neonatal intensive care, with variable experience in resuscitation.

It is important to point out the possible implications of the present findings, obtained in a heterogeneous sample, especially regarding the high values of PIP and VT delivered by over 75% of the participants, which represent a potential risk for barotrauma and volutrauma, respectively. If the poor adequacy of these isolated variables increases the risk of morbidity and mortality, the combination of excessive ventilatory pressure and volume might be even more harmful. On the other hand, due to the wide variability of the 3 variables, insufficient values of PIP, VT, and f might also be delivered. Low pressures and/or volumes may lead to hypoventilation and, consequently, hypoxemia and hypercapnia.

To decrease the variability of ventilatory parameters delivered by the self-inflating bag, some authors suggest the use of a manometer,26 which was not tested in our trials. The pop-off valve is another safety item designed to reduce delivered pressures and, consequently, the risk of lung injury. However, some studies showed that the valve may be activated at an inconsistent, wide range of pressures,27 frequently exceeding safe values.25,27 In the present study, even though the pop-off valve was kept open, we observed peak pressures over 40 cm H2O (the activation pressure limit indicated by the manufacturer) in 52% of the cases. Kain et al10 observed higher levels of PIP when the pop-off valve was kept closed; however, the authors tested different brands of resuscitators and found high variability in PIP and VT independently of the position of the valve (opened or closed).

Although the physiotherapists in the present study tended to deliver higher volumes at lower rates, most participants of all professions delivered excessive pressures and volumes, as well as insufficient f values for the newborn lung model proposed for this study. While our results are in agreement with some previous reports,6,13 some studies did not find influence of profession on ventilatory parameters delivered by the self-inflating bag.5,11,25 Nevertheless, it is important to stress that it is difficult to compare the results of the several available studies mainly because of differences in the professional profile of the volunteers.

There are limitations to our study. First of all, our tests were conducted in a laboratory environment with a test lung that does not resemble a newborn and does not simulate chest expansion, which is a situation far from the actual clinical setting and may possibly influence volunteers' performance. Additionally, compressed gas source or reservoir bag, which are commonly used for enhancing FIO2, especially during resuscitation, were not used in the tests. There is evidence that the use of compressed gas in some models of self-inflating bags may influence delivered pressures and volumes.28 It has been demonstrated, in T-piece studies, that there is a wide variability of VT due to variable inspiratory time.29 This indicates that lack of monitoring inspiratory time could contribute to wide ranges of delivered VT. This may also happen during manual ventilation with the self-inflating bag and may be considered as another limitation to this study.

An important issue raised in this study is whether or not the self-inflating bag should be used to ventilate a newborn. The answer to this question is quite difficult because, despite the disadvantages that this resuscitator carries regarding patient safety, this equipment is convenient due to its simplicity of operation and transportation, and relatively low cost. Possibly, these advantages contribute to the widespread use of the self-inflating bag in most hospitals all over the world.

Based on the results of this study, one cannot conclude that there is an ideal way of handling the self-inflating bag; however, it is important to stress that this equipment should be used only by well trained personnel, highly aware of its limitations, and in emergency situations.

Conclusions

The self-inflating bag resuscitator permits a wide range/high variability of delivered pressures, volumes, and ventilatory frequencies, frequently insufficient or excessive for neonatal resuscitation. This may contribute to the occurrence of iatrogenic complications such as barotrauma and volutrauma, as well as hypoventilation, which can increase hospitalization time and costs and, consequently, unfavorable prognosis. An important, clinically relevant finding of this study was that, independently of the profession or the number of fingers used to ventilate, in most instances the target value ranges of ventilatory pressure, volume, and frequency were not attained.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Osvaldo Ribeiro for technical support, Helymar Machado and Dr André Morcillo for statistical analysis, and Dr Rosana Bassani for the valuable suggestions.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Mariana Almada Bassani RPT MSc, Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (CAISM), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Rua Dr Alexander Fleming, 1101 Campinas, São Paulo 13083970, Brazil. E-mail: bassanimariana{at}hotmail.com.
  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Related Editorial on Page 655

  • Copyright © 2012 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Almeida MF,
    2. Guinsburg R
    . Controversies in neonatal resuscitation. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2001:77(Suppl 1):S41–S52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 2005 international consensus on cardiopulmonary rescue and emergency cardiovascular care sciences with treatment recommendations. Part 7: Neonatal resuscitation. Resuscitation 2005;67(2-3):293–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. American Heart Association; American Academy of Pediatrics; Universidade Federal de São Paulo,
    2. Guinsburg G,
    3. Almeida MF,
    4. Miyoshi MH
    , editores. Manual de Reanimação Neonatal, 5th edition. São Paulo: Editora Universidade Federal de São Paulo; 2009:125–238. Book in Portugese.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hess D,
    2. Goff G,
    3. Johnson K
    . The effect of hand size, resuscitator brand, and use of two hands on volumes delivered during adult bag- valve ventilation. Respir Care 1989;34(9):805–810.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hussey SG,
    2. Ryan CA,
    3. Murphy BP
    . Comparison of three manual ventilation devices using an intubated mannequin. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89(3):490–493.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Augustine JA,
    2. Seidel DR,
    3. McCabe JB
    . Ventilation performance using a self-inflating anesthesia bag: effect of operator characteristics. Am J Emerg Med 1987;5(4):267–270.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hess D,
    2. Spahr C
    . An evaluation of volumes delivered by selected adult disposable resuscitators: the effects of hand size, number of hands used and use of disposable medical gloves. Respir Care 1990;35(8):800–805.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.
    1. Hess D,
    2. Goff G
    . The effects of two-hand versus one-hand ventilation on volumes delivered during bag-valve ventilation at various resistances end compliances. Respir Care 1987;32(11):1025–1028.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Hess D,
    2. Simmons M,
    3. Blaukovitch S,
    4. Lightner D,
    5. Doyle T
    . An evaluation of the effects of fatigue, impedance, and use of two hands on volumes delivered during bag- valve ventilation. Respir Care 1993;38(3):271–275.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kain ZN,
    2. Berde CB,
    3. Benjamin PK,
    4. Thompson JE
    . Performance of pediatric resuscitation bags assessed with an infant lung simulator. Anesth Analg 1993;77(2):261–264.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bassani MA,
    2. Mezzacappa Filho F,
    3. Coppo MRC,
    4. Marba STM
    . Peak pressure and tidal volume are influenced by how the neonatal self-inflating bag is handled. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2009;85(3):217–222.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Law GD
    . Effect of hand size on VE, VT, and FiO2 during manual resuscitation (abstract). Respir Care 1982;27(10):1236–1238.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Finer NN,
    2. Rich W,
    3. Craft A,
    4. Henderson C
    . Comparison of methods of bag and mask ventilation for neonatal resuscitation. Resuscitation 2001;49(3):299–305.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Denehy L
    . The use of manual hyperinflation in airway clearance. Eur Respir J 1999;14(4):958–965.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. McCarren B,
    2. Chow CM
    . Manual hyperinflation: a description of the technique. Aust J Physiother 1996;42(3):203–208.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. Turki M,
    2. Young M,
    3. Wagers SS,
    4. Bates JHT
    . Peak pressures during manual ventilation. Respir Care 2005;50(3):340–344.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Rezende JG,
    2. Menezes CG,
    3. Paula AMC,
    4. Ferreira ACP,
    5. Zaconeta CAM,
    6. Silva CAM,
    7. et al
    . Avaliação do pico de pressão e de frequência respiratória durante o uso de balão auto-inflável em um modelo de pulmão neonatal. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2006;82(5):359–364. Article in Portugese.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Rezende JG,
    2. Zaconeta CAM,
    3. Ferreira ACP,
    4. Silva CAM,
    5. Rodrigues MP,
    6. Rebello CM,
    7. Tavares P
    . Avaliação do pico de pressão, do volume corrente e da frequência respiratória durante ventilação de carneiros prematuros, utilizando balão auto-inflável. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2006;82(4):279–283. Article in Portugese.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard specifications for performance and safety requirements for resuscitators intended for use with humans. Designation: F920-93. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1999. (Withdrawn 2007)
  20. 20.↵
    1. Paradine CG,
    2. Rivett BHP
    . Métodos estatísticos para tecnologias. São Paulo: Polígono da Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1974;337. Article in Portugese.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Wyllie J
    . Resuscitation of the term and premature baby. Paediatr Child Health 2008;18(4):166–171.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Goldsmith JP,
    2. Karotkin EH
    1. Spitzer AR,
    2. Fox WW
    . Positive-pressure ventilation: pressure-limited and time-cycled ventilators. In: Goldsmith JP, Karotkin EH, editors. Assisted ventilation of the neonate. Philadelphia: Saunders;1996: 167–186.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Kopelman BI,
    2. Santos AMN,
    3. Goulart AL,
    4. Almeida MFB,
    5. Miyoshi MH,
    6. Guinsburg R
    1. Guinsburg R,
    2. Almeida MFB,
    3. Miyoshi MH
    . Reanimação do recém-nascido em sala de parto. In: Kopelman BI, Santos AMN, Goulart AL, Almeida MFB, Miyoshi MH, Guinsburg R, editores. Diagnóstico e tratamento em neonatologia. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2004:31–37. Book in Portugese.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Ganga- Zandzou PS,
    2. Diependaele JF,
    3. Riou Y,
    4. Klosowski S,
    5. Rakza T,
    6. Logier R,
    7. Lequien P
    . La ventilation à Ambú chez nouveau-né: une simple question de doigté? Arch Pédiatr 1996;3(12):1270–1272. Article in French.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Roehr CC,
    2. Kelm M,
    3. Fischer HS,
    4. Bührer C,
    5. Schmalisch G,
    6. Proquitté H
    . Manual ventilation devices in neonatal resuscitation: tidal volume and positive pressure-provision. Resuscitation 2010;81(2):202–205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Goldstein B,
    2. Catlin E,
    3. Vetere J,
    4. Arguin L
    . The role of in- line manometers in minimizing peak and mean airway pressure during the hand-regulated ventilation of newborn infants. Respir Care 1989;34(1):23–27.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Finer NN,
    2. Barrington KJ,
    3. Al-Fadley F,
    4. Peters KL
    . Limitations of self-inflating resuscitators. Pediatrics 1986;77(3):417–420.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Godoy AC,
    2. Vieira RJ,
    3. De Capitani EM
    . Alterações de pico inspiratório e do volume corrente fornecidos por reanimadores manuais com balão auto-inflável em função do fluxo de entrada de oxigênio utilizado. J Bras Pneumol 2008;34(10):817–821. Article in Portugese.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Mc Hale S,
    2. Thomas M,
    3. Hayden E,
    4. Bergin K,
    5. Mc Callion N,
    6. Molloy EJ
    . Variation in inspiratory time and tidal volume with T-piece neonatal resuscitator: Association with operator experience and distraction. Resuscitation 2008;79(2):230–233.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 57 (4)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 57, Issue 4
1 Apr 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An Evaluation of Peak Inspiratory Pressure, Tidal Volume, and Ventilatory Frequency During Ventilation With a Neonatal Self-Inflating Bag Resuscitator
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
An Evaluation of Peak Inspiratory Pressure, Tidal Volume, and Ventilatory Frequency During Ventilation With a Neonatal Self-Inflating Bag Resuscitator
Mariana Almada Bassani, Francisco Mezzacappa Filho, Maria Regina de Carvalho Coppo, Sérgio Tadeu Martins Marba
Respiratory Care Apr 2012, 57 (4) 525-530; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.01423

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
An Evaluation of Peak Inspiratory Pressure, Tidal Volume, and Ventilatory Frequency During Ventilation With a Neonatal Self-Inflating Bag Resuscitator
Mariana Almada Bassani, Francisco Mezzacappa Filho, Maria Regina de Carvalho Coppo, Sérgio Tadeu Martins Marba
Respiratory Care Apr 2012, 57 (4) 525-530; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.01423
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • newborn infant
  • barotrauma
  • positive pressure respiration
  • pulmonary ventilation
  • tidal volume

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire