Resistance to Flow through the Valves of Mouth-to-Mask Ventilation Devices

Abstract

Purpose

We conducted this study to determine the inspiratory and expiratory flow resistance of the valves of eight commercially available mouth-to-mask ventilation devices.

Methods & Materials

We evaluated the valves of Intertech, Laerdal, Life Design Systems (LDS), Res-Q, Respironics, Rondex, Vital Signs, and White. The devices were supplied by the manufacturers and included the valve and any filter or extension tube supplied with the valve. Expiratory resistance was evaluated by directing air through the valve in the direction of flow when the patient exhales. Inspiratory resistance was evaluated by directing air through the valve in the direction of flow when a breath is delivered to the patient. Flow was controlled by a Timeter 0-75 flowmeter and measured using a calibrated Timeter RT-200. Flows of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 L/min were used. 'Back' pressure due to the resistance of the valves was measured using a calibrated Timeter RT-200. Resistance was calculated by dividing back pressure by flow. Five measurements were made at each flow setting for each valve.

Results

We observed significant differences in back pressures and resistances between the flows evaluated (p < 0.001 for both inspiratory and expiratory flows), and between the commercially available devices (p < 0.001 for both inspiratory and expiratory flows). At a flow of 50 L/min, the inspiratory back pressures produced by the devices were [mean (SD) in cm H2O] Intertech 5.2 (0.06), Laerdal 4.6 (0.09), LDS 4.7 (0.03), Res-Q 3.1 (0.04), Respironics 3.3 (0.04), Rondex 1.1 (0.02), Vital Signs 4.0 (0.06), and White 4.3 (0.10). At this same flow, the expiratory back pressures were Intertech 4.8 (0.30), Laerdal 9.1 (0.10), LDS 3.3 (0.02), Res-Q 3.7 (0.35), Respironics 0.5 (0.01), Rondex 1.4 (0.01), Vital Signs 3.6 (0.05), and White 13.7 (0.48).

Conclusions

In some cases, the resistance through these devices might be considered excessive; however, most of the devices meet the International Standards Organization (ISO) standard (back pressure < 5 cm H2O at 50 L/min).

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hess

, Baran

Ventilatory volumes using mouth-to-mouth, mouth-to-mask, and bag-valve-mask techniques. Am J Emerg Med 1985;3:292–296.

Elling

, Politis

An evaluation of emergency medical technicians' ability to use manual ventilation devices. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:765–768.

Johannigman

, Branson

, Davis

, Hurst

. Techniques of emergency ventilation: a model to evaluate tidal volume, airway pressure, and gastric insufflation. J Trauma 1991;31:93–98.

Seidelin

, Stolarek

, Littlewood

. Comparison of six methods of emergency ventilation. Lancet 1986;2:1274–1275.

Lawrence

, Sivaneswaran

Ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Which method?

Med J Aust 1985;143:443–446.

Sainsbury

, David

, Walker

. Artificial ventilation for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Med J Aust 1984;141:509–511.

Greenslade

. Single operator cardiopulmonary resuscitation in ambulances. Which ventilation device? Anaesthesia 1991;46:391–394.

Harrison

, Maull

, Keenan

, Boyan

. Mouth-to-mask ventilation: a superior method of rescue breathing. Ann Emerg Med 1982;11:74–76.

Cummings

, Austin JR , Litwin

, Pierce

Ventilation skills of emergency medical technicians: a teaching challenge for emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:1187–1192.

10.

Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. MMWR 1987;36:3S–18S.

11.

American Heart Association (AHA). Healthcare provider's manual for basic cardiac life support. Dallas: AHA, 1988.

12.

Emergency Cardiac Care Committee and Subcommittees, American Heart Association. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care: adult basic life support. JAMA 1992;268:2184–2198.

13.

Emergency Cardiac Care Committee and Subcommittees, American Heart Association. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care: adult advanced cardiac life support. JAMA 1992;268:2199–2241.

14.

ECRI. Pulmonary resuscitators. Health Devices 1989;18:333–352.

15.

Hess

, Ness

, Oppel

, Rhoads

Evaluation of mouth-to-mask ventilation devices. Respir Care 1989;34:191–195.

16.

International Organization for Standardization. International Standard ISO 8382:1988 (E): resuscitators intended for use with humans. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1988.

17.

Hess

, Simmons

An evaluation of the resistance to flow through the patient valves of twelve adult manual resuscitators. Respir Care 1992;37:432–438.

18.

Marini

, Culver

, Kirk

Flow resistance of exhalation valves and positive end-expiratory pressure devices used in mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985;131:850–854.

19.

Pinsky MR , Hrehocik

, Culpepper

, Snyder

. Flow resistance of expiratory positive-pressure systems. Chest 1988;94:788–791.

20.

Wright

, Marini

, Bernard

. In-vitro versus in-vivo comparison of endotracheal tube airflow resistance. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989;140:10–19.

21.

Sokal

, Rohlf

. Introduction to biostatistics, 2nd ed. New York: WH Freeman & Co, 1987:27–45, 185–510.