Respiratory care · 2021
Oxygen Delivery With an Open Oxygen Mask and Other Conventional Masks: A Simulation-Based Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sorg Morgan E, Chatburn Robert L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A recently introduced open oxygen mask design was marketed in 2021 (open mask A). The manufacturer claims that the mask "…provides one solution for all your oxygen delivery needs across your patients' continuum of care." The new oxygen mask specifies flow (1-15 L/min and flush) with an expected FIO2 from 0.25-0.85. This suggests that this mask eliminates the need for multiple oxygen delivery devices as FIO2 requirements change. This study aimed to describe the FIO2 performance of the new open oxygen mask and other commonly used oxygen masks.
METHODS: The following oxygen masks were studied: open mask A, open mask B, simple mask, partial rebreather, and non-rebreather. An adult mannequin head was attached to a breathing simulator, which recorded FIO2 at the simulated alveolar level. The simulator was set to a closed-loop volume control mode: VT = 320 mL, compliance = 50 mL/cm H2O, resistance = 4 cm H2O/L/s, breathing frequency = 15 breaths/min, increase = 25%, hold = 0%, and release = 30%. Oxygen was run through each mask at the recommended flows. Each flow was verified with a flow analyzer before attaching the mask for oxygen measurement. Each experiment was performed twice. The FIO2 measurements were averaged and compared using a 2-way ANOVA with P < .05 indicating significance.
RESULTS: The FIO2 delivery was significantly different for each device. The measured FIO2 range was open mask A, 0.30-0.60; open mask B, 0.28-0.64; simple mask, 0.55-0.73; partial non-rebreather, 0.73-1.0; non-rebreather, 0.93-1.00.
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of each oxygen mask from highest to lowest FIO2 : non-rebreather, partial rebreather, simple mask, open mask A, and open mask B. These findings suggest that no oxygen mask tested serves as a substitute for the others across a flow range of 1-15 L/min and flush.
METHODS: The following oxygen masks were studied: open mask A, open mask B, simple mask, partial rebreather, and non-rebreather. An adult mannequin head was attached to a breathing simulator, which recorded FIO2 at the simulated alveolar level. The simulator was set to a closed-loop volume control mode: VT = 320 mL, compliance = 50 mL/cm H2O, resistance = 4 cm H2O/L/s, breathing frequency = 15 breaths/min, increase = 25%, hold = 0%, and release = 30%. Oxygen was run through each mask at the recommended flows. Each flow was verified with a flow analyzer before attaching the mask for oxygen measurement. Each experiment was performed twice. The FIO2 measurements were averaged and compared using a 2-way ANOVA with P < .05 indicating significance.
RESULTS: The FIO2 delivery was significantly different for each device. The measured FIO2 range was open mask A, 0.30-0.60; open mask B, 0.28-0.64; simple mask, 0.55-0.73; partial non-rebreather, 0.73-1.0; non-rebreather, 0.93-1.00.
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of each oxygen mask from highest to lowest FIO2 : non-rebreather, partial rebreather, simple mask, open mask A, and open mask B. These findings suggest that no oxygen mask tested serves as a substitute for the others across a flow range of 1-15 L/min and flush.