[Bellows or bag? Testing 10 ventilators and some medical history comments].

Abstract

We compared a new bellows ventilator (Kendall Cardiovent) with two other bellows (Dräger Resutator 63, Tagg Breathsaver) and seven bag or ball ventilators (Aerodyne Hope, Ambu Mark 3, Ambu Silicon, Dräger Resutator 2000, Laerdal Resu, Mercury CPR, Weinmann Combibag). Tidal volumes were measured with two Laerdal Recording Resusci Annies, one lying on the floor, one in a bed. Twelve participants performed mask ventilation with all ten devices on both manikins for two minutes, trying to achieve tidal volumes of between 0.8 and 1.21 as recommended by the AHA. The last ten ventilations each on the graphic strips were analysed for volume. The participants scored handling of the devices on a 6-point scale (1 = very good, 6 = insufficient). The results of the Cardiovent were compared to those of the other devices by rank sum test (percentage of correct ventilations) and sign test (subjective handling). The Cardiovent provided exact ventilation with 95% of ventilations) on the floor and 78% of ventilations in bed in the recommended range. However, the percentage of correct ventilations with the Cardiovent was not significantly different to the other devices except for a lower percentage of correct ventilations with the Combibag in the in bed setting. Concerning subjective handling, the Cardiovent was significantly superior to several ball ventilators.