A COMPARISON OF MOUTH-TO-MOUTH, MOUTH-TO-POCKET FACE MASK AND BAG VALVE MASK VENTILATION DURING LIFEGUARDS’ CPR: A MANIKIN STUDY

Abstract

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of ventilation of each of three methods: mouth-to-mouth ventilation using a foil face mask with a filter pad, mouth-to-mask technique with a pocket face mask and bag valve mask ventilation using a self-inflating bag and a face mask, performed during CPR by qualified non-medical rescuers. Material and methods: Ventilation effectiveness was assessed on manikin and compared for mouth-to-mouth, mouth-to-mask and bag valve mask ventilation method. 46 qualified non-medical rescuers-lifeguards participated in the study. Tidal Volume of 0,4-0,7L was considered as effective. The length of chest compressions pauses was recorded. The ventilation methods were also evaluated subjectively by participants in the questionnaire. Results: Effectiveness 90,75% vs. 92,38% vs. 69,5%; average number of effective rescue breaths: 7,26 vs. 7,39 vs. 5,65; average length of chest compressions pause: 7,7s vs. 8,1s vs. 9,9s for MTM, MPFM and BMV respectively. MPFM method was considered as the easiest, the second in terms of the difficulty in use was MTM, and BMV was described as the most difficult to use. Conclusions: Artificial ventilation using the pocket mask, in the course of resuscitation performed by one qualified non-medical rescuer, e.g. the water lifeguard, is an effective method ensuring adequate tidal volume and is more effective than mouth-to-mouth method and bag valve mask ventilation.