Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
https://bjan-sba.org/article/doi/10.1590/S0034-70942009000100004
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Scientific Article

Comparação da FiO2 fornecida por sete modelos de sistema balão-máscara auto-inflável

Comparison of the FiO2 delivered by seven models of the self-inflating bag-mask system

Armando Carlos Franco de Godoy; Ronan José Vieira

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-70942009000100004 Braz J Anesthesiol, vol.59, n1, p.21-27, 2009
PDF Português
PDF English
Downloads: 0
Views: 1067

Resumo

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Devido ao fato dos reanimadores com sistema balão-máscara auto-infláveis fabricados e/ou comercializados no Brasil serem amplamente disponíveis e utilizados em serviços de saúde extra e intra-hospitalares, este estudo teve o objetivo de determinar as frações de O2 ofertadas por sete reanimadores recebendo diferentes fluxo de O2. MÉTODO: Sete reanimadores com sistema balão-máscara auto-infláveis foram testados na Unidade Respiratória do HC/UNICAMP. Um fluxômetro de O2 de parede foi conectado ao reanimador que recebia fluxo de O2 de 1, 5, 10 e 15 L.min-1, sendo estes conectados a um pulmão-teste. Os reanimadores que têm a capacidade de se conectar um reservatório de O2 foram testados com e sem esse acessório. Foram efetuadas 20 medidas consecutivas e determinada a média. RESULTADOS: Apenas um reanimador apresentou oferta de fração de O2 pouco abaixo do limite mínimo preconizado (0,80), quando utilizado com o reservatório de O2. Sem esse dispositivo acoplado todos os reanimadores atingiram o limite mínimo de fração de O2 preconizada (0,40). Os reanimadores que não apresentam a possibilidade de acoplar o reservatório de O2 apresentaram maior oferta de O2 em relação aos outros reanimadores. CONCLUSÕES: Todos os reanimadores que possuem a opção de acoplagem do reservatório de O2 forneceram maior concentração de O2 com esse acessório. Os reanimadores que não têm possibilidade de acoplar o reservatório de O2 apresentaram maior oferta de O2 em relação aos outros que podem ser acoplados ao reservatório quando usados sem esse acessório.

Palavras-chave

EQUIPAMENTOS

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Since resuscitators with self-inflating bag-mask systems manufactured and/or commercialized in Brazil are widely available and used in health services, both out- and intra-hospitals, the objective of this study was to determine the O2 fractions delivered by seven resuscitators receiving different O2 flows. METHODS: Seven resuscitators with self-inflating bag-mask systems were tested at the Respiratory Unit of the HC/UNICAMP. A wall O2 flowmeter was connected to the resuscitator that received an O2 flow of 1, 5, 10, and 15 L.min-1 and those were connected to a test lung. Resuscitators capable of being connected to an O2 reservoir were tested with and without this accessory. Twenty consecutive measurements were performed and the mean determined. RESULTS: Only one resuscitator delivered and O2 fraction slightly below the accepted limit (0.80) when used with the O2 reservoir. Without this device, all resuscitators achieved the minimal limit of O2 fraction (0.40). Resuscitators not capable of being connected to an O2 reservoir delivered a higher O2. CONCLUSIONS: All resuscitators capable of being connected to an O2 reservoir delivered a higher O2 concentration when connected to this device. Resuscitators that do not have this capability delivered a higher O2 concentration than the ones that could be connected to this device but are used without it.

References

Barnes TA, McGarry WP. Evaluation of ten disposable manual resuscitators. Respir Care. 1990;35:960-968.

Mazzolini DG, Marshall NA. Evaluation of 16 adult disposable manual resuscitators. Respir Care. 2004;49:1509-1514.

Carter BG, Fairbank B, Tibballs J. Oxygen delivery using self-inflating resuscitation bags. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2005;6:125-128.

Boidin MP, Mooi B, Erdmann W. Controlled administration of oxygen with self inflating resuscitation bags. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1980;31:157-165.

Nam SH, Kim KJ, Nam YT. The changes in delivered oxygen fractions using laerdal resuscitator bag with different types of reservoir. Yonsei Med J. 2001;42:242-246.

Guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council 2000 on Advanced Adult Life Support: A statement of the Advanced Life Support Working Group as approved by the Executive Committee of the European Resuscitation Council. Anaesthesist. 2002;51:293-298.

Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care: Part 7: The era of reperfusion: section 1: Acute coronary syndromes (acute myocardial infarction). Circulation. 2000;102(^s8):I172-I203.

Tibballs J, Carter B, Whittington N A. disadvantage of self-inflating resuscitation bags. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2000;28:587.

Maxwell LJ, Ellis ER. The effect on expiratory flow rate of maintaining bag compression during manual hyperinflation. Aust J Physiother. 2004;50:47-49.

International Standard ISO 8382: 1988(E): Resuscitators intended for use with humans. 1988.

Standard specification for performance and safety requirements for resuscitators intended for use with humans F-920-85. Am Soc Testing & Materials. 1993.

Barnes TA, Potash R. Evaluation of five adults disposable operator-powered resuscitators. Respir Care. 1989;34:254-261.

Barnes TA, Stockwell DL. Evaluation of ten manual resuscitators across an operational temperature range of -18 degrees C to 50 degrees C. Respir Care. 1991;36:161-172.

Barnes TA, Catino ME, Burns EC. Comparison of an oxygen-powered flow-limited resuscitator to manual ventilation with an adult 1,000-mL self-inflating bag. Respir Care. 2005;50:1445-1450.

Zecha-Stallinger A, Wenzel V, Wagner-Berger HG. A strategy to optimize the performance of the mouth-to-bag resuscitator using small tidal volumes: effects on lung and gastric ventilation in a bench model of an unprotected airway. Resuscitation. 2004;61:69-74.

Bennett S, Finer NN, Rich W. A comparison of three neonatal resuscitation devices. Resuscitation. 2005;67:113-118.

Turki M, Young MP, Wagers SS. Peak pressures during manual ventilation. Respir Care. 2005;50:340-344.

5dd693220e8825977513f286 rba Articles
Links & Downloads
2352-2291 (Electronic) 0104-0014 (Printed)
Braz J Anesthesiol ©2024 All rights reserved.

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections