Acute and Critical Care

Hong Joon Ahn

1 Article

Pulmonary
The Adequacy of a Conventional Mechanical Ventilator as a Ventilation Method during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Manikin Study: Hong Joon Ahn, Kun Dong Kim, Won Joon Jeong, Jun Wan Lee, In Sool Yoo, Seung Ryu; Korean J Crit Care Med. 2015;30(2):89-94. Published online May 31, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/kjccm.2015.30.2.89

6,493 View
141 Download
5 Crossref

BACKGROUND
We conducted this study to verify whether a mechanical ventilator is adequate for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Background: We conducted this study to verify whether a mechanical ventilator is adequate for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Methods: A self-inflating bag resuscitator and a mechanical ventilator were used to test two experimental models: Model 1 (CPR manikin without chest compression) and Model 2 (CPR manikin with chest compression). Model 2 was divided into three subgroups according to ventilator pressure limits (Plimit). The self-inflating bag resuscitator was set with a ventilation rate of 10 breaths/min with the volume-marked bag-valve procedure. The mode of the mechanical ventilator was set as follows: volume-controlled mandatory ventilation of tidal volume (Vt) 600 mL, an inspiration time of 1.2 seconds, a constant flow pattern, a ventilation rate of 10 breaths/minute, a positive end expiratory pressure of 3 cmH2O and a maximum trigger limit. Peak airway pressure (Ppeak) and Vt were measured by a flow analyzer. Ventilation adequacy was determined at a Vt range of 400-600 mL with a Ppeak of ≤ 50 cmH2O. Results: In Model 1, Vt and Ppeak were in the appropriate range in the ventilation equipments. In Model 2, for the self-inflating bag resuscitator, the adequate Vt and Ppeak levels were 17%, and the Ppeak adequacy was 20% and the Vt was 65%. For the mechanical ventilator, the adequate Vt and Ppeak levels were 85%; the Ppeak adequacy was 85%; and the Vt adequacy was 100% at 60 cmH2O of Plimit. Conclusions: In a manikin model, a mechanical ventilator was superior to self-inflating bag resuscitator for maintaining adequate ventilation during chest compression.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Humans vs. Machines: Mechanical Compression Devices and Their Appropriate Application in the Management of Cardiac Arrest
Emilia Clementi, Anirudh Chitale, Brian J. O’Neil, Anthony T. Lagina
Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports.2023; 11(4): 133. CrossRef
Manual vs. mechanical ventilation in patients with advanced airway during CPR
Muthapillai Senthilnathan, Ramya Ravi, Srinivasan Suganya, Ranjith Kumar Sivakumar
Indian Heart Journal.2022; 74(5): 428. CrossRef
Effects of Changes in Inspiratory Time on Inspiratory Flowrate and Airway Pressure during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Manikin-Based Study
Jung Ju Lee, Su Yeong Pyo, Ji Han Lee, Gwan Jin Park, Sang Chul Kim, Hoon Kim, Suk Woo Lee, Young Min Kim, Hyun Seok Chai
Kosin Medical Journal.2021; 36(2): 100. CrossRef
Changes in peak inspiratory flow rate and peak airway pressure with endotracheal tube size during chest compression
Jung Wan Kim, Jin Woong Lee, Seung Ryu, Jung Soo Park, InSool Yoo, Yong Chul Cho, Hong Joon Ahn
World Journal of Emergency Medicine.2020; 11(2): 97. CrossRef
Mechanical Ventilation During Resuscitation: How Manual Chest Compressions Affect a Ventilator’s Function
Tillmann Speer, Wolfgang Dersch, Björn Kleine, Christian Neuhaus, Clemens Kill
Advances in Therapy.2017; 34(10): 2333. CrossRef

Author index