Ventilación durante la reanimación cardiopulmonar en el lactante: ¿boca a boca y nariz o con bolsa autoinflable? Un estudio cuasiexperimental

Abstract

Introduction: It has been observed that health professionals have difficulty performing quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this study was to compare the quality of ventilations performed by Nursing students on an infant model using different methods (mouth-to-mouth-and-nose or bag-valve-mask). Material and methods: A quasi-experimental cross-sectional study was performed that included 46 second-year Nursing students. Two quantitative 4-minute tests of paediatric CPR were performed: a) mouth-to-mouth-and-nose ventilations, and b) ventilations with bag-valve-mask. A Resusci Baby QCPR Wireless SkillReporter® mannequin from Laerdal was used. The proportion of ventilations with adequate, excessive, and insufficient volume was recorded and analysed, as well as the overall quality of the CPR (ventilations and chest compressions). Results: The students were able to give a higher number of ventilations with adequate volume using the mouth-to-mouth-and-nose method (55. ±. 22%) than with the bag-valve-mask (28. ±. 16%, P. <. .001). The overall quality of the CPR was also significantly higher when using the mouth-to-mouth-and-nose method (60. ±. 19 vs. 48. ±. 16%, P. <. .001). Conclusions: Mouth-to-mouth-and-nose ventilation method is more efficient than bag-valve-mask ventilations in CPR performed by nursing students with a simulated infant model.