The Science Journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care
Background: During anesthesia, MV is typically provided using a 3-L BB. Effective ventilation depends on fresh gas flow, clinician skill, pt impedance, and BB characteristics. We evaluated 3 types of BB during MV by 11 CRNA students. Method: An anesthesia ventilator and 40
Results: Results are mean ± SD. ANOVA for repeated measures was used to compare variables using each BB.
| BAG | Gender | 2- L Std | 3-L Std | 2-L HS |
| VT (L) | All | 1.01 (0.11) | 0.99 (0.11) | 0.89 (0.08)* |
| Men | 1.06 (0.12) | 1.03 (0.17) | 0.94 (0.07)* | |
| Women | 0.96 (0.11) | 0.98 (0.10) | 0.87 (0.09)* | |
| PIP | All | 22.7 (3.0) | 21.2 (2.5) | 20.9 (2.3) |
| (cmH2O) | Men | 24.5 (3.7) | 22.4 (4.2) | 22.4 (1.4) |
| Women | 21.9 (3.4) | 20.6 (1.5) | 20.2 (2.4) | |
| * p < 0.05 vs 2-L and 3-L standard bags | ||||
8 of 11 VOLs preferred the 2-L HS BB. 3 VOLs preferred the std 2-L BB. Ease of use and perceived control over ventilation was better with the 2-L BBs. Conclusion: VT provided with 2-L HS BB was smaller and closer to the 0.8 L target compared to other BBs. Differences in VT were statistically, but not clinically significant. The 2-L HS BB was preferred for ease of use compared to std 2-L and 3-L BBs.
OF-99-150