Background Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5–10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers’ recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.
Methods Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.
Results 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.
Conclusions The Ambu SIB was able to accurately deliver targeted pressures across all three models from preterm to infant. The Neopuff infant resuscitator was unable to deliver the targeted pressures in the infant model developing clinically significant levels of inadvertent PEEP which may pose risk during infant resuscitation.
- Self Inflating Bag
- T-Piece Resuscitator
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors MT is primary researcher responsible for conceiving, designing, data collection, statistical analysis and writing manuscript. RM and DS contributed towards interpretation, manuscript construction and review. DS contributed to interpretation, manuscript construction and review. MH contributed by assisting in design, data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript writing and review.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval This study was approved by the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research and Ethics committee (SAC2014-5-6.9(3999)).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.