Performances and limits of Bag-Valve-Device for pre-oxygenation and manual ventilation: A comparative bench and cadaver study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionBag-Valve-Device (BVD) is the most frequently used device for pre-oxygenation and ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A minimal expired fraction of oxygen (FeO2) above 0.85 is recommended during pre-oxygenation while insufflated volume (VTi) should be reduced during manual ventilation. The objective was to compare the performances of different BVD in simulated conditions.MethodsNine BVD were evaluated during pre-oxygenation: spontaneous breathing patients were simulated on a test lung (mild and severe conditions). FeO2 was measured with and without positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). CO2 rebreathing was evaluated. Then, manual ventilation was performed by 36 caregivers (n = 36) from three hospitals on a specific manikin; same procedure was repeated by 3 caregivers (n = 3) on two human cadavers with three of the nine BVD: In non-CPR scenario and during mechanical CPR with Interrupted Chest Compressions strategy (30:2).ResultsPre-oxygenation: FeO2 was lower than 0.85 for three BVD in severe condition and for two BVD in mild condition. FeO2 was higher than 0.85 in eight of nine BVD with an additional PEEP valve (PEEP 5 cmH2O). One BVD induced CO2 rebreathing.Manual ventilation: For non-CPR manual ventilation, mean VTi was within the predefined lung protective range (4–8 mL/kg PBW) for all BVD on the bench. For CPR manual ventilation, mean VTi was above the range for three BVD on the bench. Similar results were observed on cadavers.ConclusionsSeveral BVD did not reach the FeO2 required during pre-oxygenation. Manual ventilation was significantly less protective in three BVD. These observations are related to the different BVD working principles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".