2005 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
EVALUATION OF RESUSCITATION BAGS
by Joe Dwan, MS, RRT, Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center, Portland, OR
A bench evaluation of disposable, self-inflating adult, pediatric & neonatal resuscitation bags was performed focusing on delivered FiO2 and bag performance.
Method: Bench testing of 7 brands and 19 bags was performed with a calibrated O2 flowmeter, calibrated oxygen analyzer, and respirometer. FiO2 was measured at variable O2 flows and respiratory rates with consistent tidal volumes. Reservoir type, bag compliance, features and comments were also recorded. Vomitus valve clearance and three meter drop tests were also performed.
Discussion: Bag design, reservoir design, O2 flowrate, and delivered minute ventilation were determining factors in study outcomes. Different respiratory rates and various flowmeter flow rates were used to simulate actual conditions. At 10 lpm O2 flow, all adult bags failed ASTM FdO2 standards at minute volumes of 16 liters. Only one bag-type per manufacturer was tested.
Conclusion: Small-bore aerosol reservoirs consistently performed poorly for FdO2. Large bore reservoirs performed significantly better. Flowmeters should be set on flush when using resuscitation bags. Three of the seven brands adult bags were rated acceptable. All neonatal bags and most pediatric bags were acceptable. All bags passed the 3 meter drop test. Duck-billed valves cleared of simulated vomitus readily.
| Adult Bags |
FdO2 @10,15,flush |
Bagged Rate |
Type of Reservoir |
| VitalSigns | 91,94,94 | 10 | sm aerosol |
| 71,91,94 | 20 | sm aerosol | |
| Nellcor | 91,98,100 | 10 | sm aerosol |
| 81,97,100 | 20 | sm aerosol | |
| Mercury | 89,99,100 | 10 | bag |
| 74,96,99 | 20 | bag | |
| Portex | 82,90,93 | 10 | large bore |
| 73,82,87 | 20 | large bore | |
| Hudson | 88,88,91 | 10 | bag |
| 62,83,86 | 20 | bag | |
| Allegiance | 70,74,78 | 10 | sm aerosol |
| 68,74,76 | 20 | sm aerosol | |
| Ambu | 64,68,73 | 10 | sm aerosol |
| 62,65,71 | 20 | sm aerosol |
You are here: RCJournal.com » Past OPEN FORUM Abstracts » 2005 Abstracts » EVALUATION OF RESUSCITATION BAGS