MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396510656 · doi:10.4187/respcare.11588

Assessment of Ventilation Using Adult and Pediatric Manual Resuscitators in a Simulated Adult Patient

2024· article· en· W4396510656 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua M. Justice, Arthur S. Slutsky, Nathan Stanford, Christopher Isennock, Sameer Siddiqui, Hamza Zamir, Jonathan R. Walker, Mark F. Brady

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The bag-valve-mask (BVM) or manual resuscitator bag is used as a first-line technique to ventilate patients with respiratory failure. Volume-restricted manual resuscitator bags (eg, pediatric bags) have been suggested to minimize overventilation and associated complications. There are studies that both support and caution against the use of a pediatric resuscitator bag to ventilate an adult patient. In this study, we evaluated the ability of pre-hospital clinicians to adequately ventilate an adult manikin with both an adult- and pediatric-size manual resuscitator bag without the assistance of an advanced airway or airway adjunct device. METHODS: This study was conducted at an international conference in 2022. Conference attendees with pre-hospital health care experience were recruited to ventilate an adult manikin using a BVM for 1 min with both an adult and pediatric resuscitator bag, without the use of adjunct airway devices, while 6 ventilatory variables were collected or calculated: tidal volume (V T ), breathing frequency, adequate breaths (V T > 150 mL), proportion of adequate breaths, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), and estimated alveolar ventilation (EAV). RESULTS: A total of 208 participants completed the study. Ventilation with the adult-sized BVM delivered an average V T of 290.4 mL compared to 197.1 mL ( P < .001) when using the pediatric BVM. PIP with the adult BVM was higher than with the pediatric BVM (10.6 cm H 2 O vs 8.6 cm H 2 O, P < .001). The median EAV with the adult bag (1,138.1 [interquartile range [IQR] 194.0–2,869.9] mL/min) was markedly greater than with the pediatric BVM (67.7 [IQR 0–467.3] mL/min, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both pediatric- and adult-sized BVM provided lower ventilation volumes than those recommended by professional guidelines for an adult. Ventilation with the pediatric BVM was significantly worse than with the adult bag when ventilating a simulated adult subject.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207