Development of a Novel Dynamic Leak Model to Simulate Leak for Performance Testing of Manual Neonatal Resuscitation Devices. Does Leak Matter? A Bench Study

Stephanie Morakeas, Murray Hinder, Thomas Drevhammar, Viktoria Gruber, Alistair Mcewan, Mark Tracy
{"title":"Development of a Novel Dynamic Leak Model to Simulate Leak for Performance Testing of Manual Neonatal Resuscitation Devices. Does Leak Matter? A Bench Study","authors":"Stephanie Morakeas, Murray Hinder, Thomas Drevhammar, Viktoria Gruber, Alistair Mcewan, Mark Tracy","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.12.24313593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Newborn resuscitation is commonly performed in the presence of face mask leak. Leak is highly variable, pressure dependent and often unrecognised. The effectiveness of resuscitation devices to deliver adequate inflations in the presence of leak is unknown. Bench models simulating continuous leak have disadvantages of not accurately reflecting leak occurring during clinical resuscitation. A dynamic leak model based on pressure release valves was thus developed. Aim: To assess self-inflating bag (SIB) and T-piece resuscitator (TPR) ventilation performance in the presence of dynamic (DLM) compared to continuous (CLM) leak models in a bench study. Method: Five predefined leak levels were tested for each leak model (0-87%). Resuscitation devices were connected to a test lung (compliance 0.6 mL/cmH2O) and respiratory parameters were measured using respiratory function monitors before (patient interface) and after (actual) an induced leak at 40, 60, 80 inflations/min. Results: 3,600 inflations were analysed. DLM showed a decrease in actual tidal volumes from 0%-87% leak with tidal volume differences (SIB 4.8mL, TPR 2.9mL), contrasting to minimal change for CLM (SIB -0.6mL, TPR 0.3mL). CLM demonstrated larger differences between patient interface and actual leak. The absolute difference at 60 inflations/min at 87% leak were SIB 37.5%, TPR 18.2% for CLM compared to SIB 4.6%, TPR 1.4% for DLM. Conclusion: CLM may underestimate the impact of resuscitation device performance with poor correlation between patient interface and actual delivered volume. DLM demonstrates several advantages with more accurate representation of face mask leak and will prove useful in modelling all systems delivering PPV.","PeriodicalId":501549,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Pediatrics","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.12.24313593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Newborn resuscitation is commonly performed in the presence of face mask leak. Leak is highly variable, pressure dependent and often unrecognised. The effectiveness of resuscitation devices to deliver adequate inflations in the presence of leak is unknown. Bench models simulating continuous leak have disadvantages of not accurately reflecting leak occurring during clinical resuscitation. A dynamic leak model based on pressure release valves was thus developed. Aim: To assess self-inflating bag (SIB) and T-piece resuscitator (TPR) ventilation performance in the presence of dynamic (DLM) compared to continuous (CLM) leak models in a bench study. Method: Five predefined leak levels were tested for each leak model (0-87%). Resuscitation devices were connected to a test lung (compliance 0.6 mL/cmH2O) and respiratory parameters were measured using respiratory function monitors before (patient interface) and after (actual) an induced leak at 40, 60, 80 inflations/min. Results: 3,600 inflations were analysed. DLM showed a decrease in actual tidal volumes from 0%-87% leak with tidal volume differences (SIB 4.8mL, TPR 2.9mL), contrasting to minimal change for CLM (SIB -0.6mL, TPR 0.3mL). CLM demonstrated larger differences between patient interface and actual leak. The absolute difference at 60 inflations/min at 87% leak were SIB 37.5%, TPR 18.2% for CLM compared to SIB 4.6%, TPR 1.4% for DLM. Conclusion: CLM may underestimate the impact of resuscitation device performance with poor correlation between patient interface and actual delivered volume. DLM demonstrates several advantages with more accurate representation of face mask leak and will prove useful in modelling all systems delivering PPV.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发新型动态渗漏模型,模拟新生儿人工复苏设备性能测试中的渗漏。泄漏重要吗?工作台研究
背景:新生儿复苏通常在面罩泄漏的情况下进行。面罩泄漏的情况千变万化,与压力有关,而且往往无法识别。复苏设备在出现泄漏时提供充分充气的效果尚不清楚。模拟持续泄漏的工作台模型存在不能准确反映临床复苏过程中发生的泄漏的缺点。因此,我们开发了一种基于压力释放阀的动态泄漏模型。目的: 在一项工作台研究中,评估自充气袋 (SIB) 和 T 片式复苏器 (TPR) 在动态 (DLM) 泄漏模型与连续 (CLM) 泄漏模型相比的通气性能。方法:对每种泄漏模型(0-87%)的五个预定义泄漏水平进行了测试。将复苏装置连接到测试肺(顺应性为 0.6 mL/cmH2O),并在 40、60 和 80 充气/分钟的诱导泄漏之前(患者界面)和之后(实际)使用呼吸功能监测仪测量呼吸参数。结果:分析了 3,600 次充气。DLM 显示,在 0%-87% 泄漏期间,实际潮气量下降,潮气量差异为(SIB 4.8 毫升,TPR 2.9 毫升),而 CLM 的变化极小(SIB -0.6毫升,TPR 0.3 毫升)。CLM 患者界面与实际泄漏之间的差异更大。在充气 60 次/分钟、漏气率为 87% 的情况下,CLM 的绝对差异为 SIB 37.5%、TPR 18.2%,而 DLM 的绝对差异为 SIB 4.6%、TPR 1.4%。结论:CLM 可能会低估复苏设备性能的影响,患者界面与实际输送量之间的相关性较差。DLM 能更准确地反映面罩泄漏情况,具有多项优势,将被证明有助于对所有提供 PPV 的系统进行建模。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nirsevimab in Reducing Pediatric RSV Hospitalizations in Spain The Impact of Chlorinated Drinking Water Exposure on Gut Microbiota Development in Infants: a Randomised Controlled Trial. Development of a Novel Dynamic Leak Model to Simulate Leak for Performance Testing of Manual Neonatal Resuscitation Devices. Does Leak Matter? A Bench Study How young people experienced Long COVID services: a qualitative analysis. Knowledge of Childhood and Adolescent Cancer Among Primary Caregivers: An Observational and Prospective Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1