RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Evaluation of Simulated Ventilation Techniques With the Upright and Conventional Self-Inflating Neonatal Resuscitators JF Respiratory Care FD American Association for Respiratory Care SP 1428 OP 1436 DO 10.4187/respcare.05328 VO 62 IS 11 A1 Indira Narayanan A1 Marvesh Mendhi A1 Pooja Bansil A1 Patricia S Coffey YR 2017 UL http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/62/11/1428.abstract AB BACKGROUND: The study assessed the impact of simulated ventilation techniques using upright and conventional self-inflating neonatal resuscitators on delivered tidal volume (VT) and pressure.METHODS: We analyzed videos of participants ventilating a manikin using an upright (upright, n = 33) and a conventional resuscitator (conventional, n = 32) under normal and low lung compliance. Mask hold, number of fingers squeezing the bag, and degree of bag squeeze were compared with VT and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP).RESULTS: VT and PIP values were higher when using the upright resuscitator than when using the conventional resuscitator. With low compliance, differences in VT were insignificant except with the use of the OK/C hold, (upright, 29.6 ± 4.0 mL, vs conventional, 24.8 ± 6.0 mL, P = .02). PIP was significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 36.3 ± 4.4 mL, vs conventional, 30.3 ± 6.6 mL, P = .009) and when the bag was squeezed by more than half (upright, 33.8 ± 16.3 mL, vs conventional, 29.3 ± 9.5 mL, P = .046). With normal compliance, VT was high with both resuscitators, being significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 64.3 ± 9.5 mL, vs conventional, 45.8 ± 9.4 mL; P < .001), and when the bag was squeezed using more than 2 fingers (upright, 58.0 ± 17.2 mL, vs conventional, 45.7 ± 12.6 mL, P = .01) and by more than half (upright, 58.7 ± 16.6 mL, vs conventional, 45.8 ± 12.2 mL, P = .004). PIP, too, was significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 29.3 ± 3.5 mL, vs conventional, 21.5 ± 4.0 mL, P = <.001) and when the bag was squeezed using more than 2 fingers (upright, 27.2 ± 7.0 mL, vs conventional, 21.6 ± 5.7 mL, P = .005), and by more than half (upright, 27.6 ± 6.6 mL, vs conventional, 21.7 ± 5.4 mL, P = .001).CONCLUSIONS: Improved mask design, larger bag volume, and upright orientation of the upright resuscitator likely contributed to higher VT and PIP. However, high VT was observed with both resuscitators, possibly due to excessive squeezing of the bag, especially during low compliance. Thus, the design of the resuscitator and manner in which the device is utilized can both significantly influence the VT and PIP attained.