Manual Ventilation Performance With Safety Device in Normal Versus Decreased Lung Compliance: A Single-Center Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Resuscitator bags are commonly utilized in acute care settings; however, poor performance occurs irrespective of a provider’s qualifications or experience. A new flow-limiting device (Sotair by SafeBVM, Boston, Massachusetts) limits inspiratory flow during manual ventilation, thus minimizing peak inspiratory pressures. This study examined the differences in flow, pressure, and tidal volume (V T ) during ventilation with a manual resuscitator connected to the flow-limiting device versus a mechanical ventilator. Methods: Second-year respiratory therapy students were recruited from an advanced cardiovascular life support class. Participants conducted a 2-min trial of manually ventilating a test lung utilizing normal and decreased compliance settings with the flow-limiting device connected to an endotracheal tube. Demographic data on participants’ age were collected. The control group consisted of a mechanical ventilator providing ventilation with the same test lung and compliance settings. Mean differences were compared between the manual ventilation and control group. Results: A total of 41 respiratory therapy students (71% female, 76% undergraduate) participated. The mean experience level using the bag-valve-mask was 6.71, and the mean confidence level was 8.02; the scale was 0–10 with high numbers indicating greater experience or confidence. A small but statistically significant difference was found in mean peak pressures between manual ventilation with the flow-limiting device (15 cm H 2 O) and the mechanical ventilator (13 cm H 2 O) for the normal lung setting ( P = .008) but not for the decreased compliance lung setting (23 cm H 2 O vs 23 cm H 2 O with the ventilator). There was a significant difference in mean V T between manual ventilation (412 mL) and the mechanical ventilator (460 mL) in the decreased compliance lung setting ( P = .003) but not the normal compliance setting (452 mL vs 474 mL with the ventilator). Conclusions: Although there were some statistically significant differences between the 2 groups, these differences were not clinically important. Participants adequately manually ventilated with V T similar to a mechanical ventilator.
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".