MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2014916898 · doi:10.1097/00000542-200009000-00044

Fatal Barotrauma Resulting from Misuse of a Resuscitation Bag

2000· article· en· W2014916898 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Richard M. Cooper, Sandra Grgas

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnesthesiology · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Établissements canadiensToronto General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAnesthesiaResuscitationTracheal intubationIntubationAirwaySurgeryIntensive care medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

MANUAL resuscitation bags may be assumed mistakenly to be simple devices, but they consist of multiple valves to create positive pressure, permit exhalation, and segregate inspiratory and expiratory gases. Erroneous assembly or misuse can profoundly impact patient outcome. We wish to draw attention to such a case, which had fatal consequences. Although the resuscitation bag was not used as intended by the manufacturer, we believe that a well-designed device should not permit a misassembly with such serious consequences. We wish to draw attention to the potential hazards of failing to monitor airway pressure during bag–mask ventilation.A 27-yr-old woman with stage 2B large-cell lymphoma was admitted to the hospital for treatment of spinal cord compression. The results of magnetic resonance imaging were consistent with thoracolumbar nodules, and the patient was treated using intrathecal cytosine arabinoside and methotrexate, in addition to local irradiation. Her disease was complicated further by intermittent fevers, which yielded negative cultures. Three weeks before her death, bilateral perihilar infiltrates developed, along with increasing oxygen requirements, indicative of radiation pneumonitis or opportunistic infection. Empirical antibiotic treatment was initiated. Results of bronchoalveolar lavage were consistent with cytomegalovirus and Pneumocycystis carinii pneumonia infection, and ganciclovir and γ-globulin were added.Despite maximal oxygen therapy with use of a face mask, arterial oxygen saturation (Spo2) decreased to 85%. The patient and her family had previously requested full resuscitation. After sedation with intravenous morphine and diazepam, tracheal intubation was attempted but was unsuccessful. Glottic visualization and tracheal intubation were finally achieved and confirmed by auscultation. Attempts to transfer the patient to the critical care unit were complicated by a decrease in Spo2to 70%, prompting a return to her room. Manual ventilation using a disposable self-inflating bag (FeatherFlex; Brathwaites-Olivier, Winnipeg, Canada) did not correct the hypoxemia. The reservoir bag was not filling despite high flow, and a decision was made to increase the oxygen supply by connecting a second flowmeter to a proximal nipple (fig. 1). The reservoir bag immediately became distended, and subcutaneous emphysema, abdominal distention, and pulseless electrical activity were noted. Nasogastric tube insertion and bilateral needle thoracostomies were performed with 14-gauge catheters. An air leak was noted, and chest tubes were inserted bilaterally. Incorrect endotracheal tube placement was suspected; the tube was withdrawn and replaced without difficulty. Chest compressions were commenced, and intravenous epinephrine was administered, resulting in restoration of a pulse. Profound hypoxemia persisted, and further resuscitative efforts were deemed futile. Consent for an autopsy could not be obtained. The resuscitation bag used was not available for subsequent evaluation. However, an identical device was connected to a test lung (Lung Simulator, Model LS122; Medishield, Harlow-Essex, UK) to recreate the problem. The initial failure to inflate the reservoir bag could not be reproduced. We do not have an adequate explanation for this event. Both flowmeters were functional. It is possible that there was a kink in the oxygen tubing.We demonstrated that the addition of oxygen flow via the proximal nipple, intended for airway pressure monitoring, distorted the inspiratory duckbill valve and prevented exhalation. This is the probable cause of the fatal barotrauma experienced by this patient.The device was not used as the manufacturer had intended. It is our opinion, however, that such a design is potentially dangerous. Airway-pressure monitoring is desirable to avoid exposing the lungs to excessive pressure. High airway pressures can inadvertently be caused with use of numerous manual resuscitator bags (manuscript in preparation). It is our belief that a manometry connection should be designed so that erroneous assembly will not result in valve malfunction. Ideally, the manometry nipple should also be incompatible with oxygen tubing.It is not clear whether the effect on exhalation was a design fault or a production fault. The device used is manufactured by Brathwaites but widely sold by other vendors, with various private labels. In Canada, Brathwaites-Olivier has voluntarily recalled and replaced all manual resuscitators with manometry ports (D. Olivier, president, Brathwaites-Olivier, written communication, April 1999). They have also made modifications to an expiratory valve to prevent excessive pressure production within the bag (D. Murdoch, representative, Brathwaites-Olivier, oral communication, December 1999). Such initiatives may not have taken place in other jurisdictions. The described modifications may reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence, but product familiarity and proper assembly are vital. The purpose of this report is to draw attention to the potential consequences of faulty use and to encourage proper use of manometry or the purchase of bag valve devices that do not have manometry nipples.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,361
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,802

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,255 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnesthesiologyMême sujetPleural and Pulmonary DiseasesTravaux en français237 207