Alkan M, Aytac I, Guven Aytac B, Unal H, Gursul B, Baskan S, Postaci A, Gogus N. Comparison of intraoral mask and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success and practitioners' workload assessments: A randomised crossover study.
Int J Clin Pract 2021;
75:e14821. [PMID:
34499788 DOI:
10.1111/ijcp.14821]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2021] [Revised: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 09/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM
Providing effective ventilation of the unconscious patient is an essential skill in every specialty dealing with airway management. In this randomised crossover study aimed to compare intraoral and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success of patients, practitioners' workload and anxiety assessments. Also we analysed potential risk factors of difficult mask ventilation for both masks.
METHODS
In all, 24 anaesthesiology residents and 12 anaesthesiologists participated in the study. Each of the practitioners ventilated four patients with both masks at settled pressure and frequency. Practitioners rated their workload and anxiety related to masks with National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index score and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scale. Ventilation success was evaluated with Han scale, expiratory tidal volume and leak volume. We analysed potential risk factors of difficult mask ventilation with anthropometric characteristics and STOP-Bang score.
RESULTS
Ventilation success rate was superior with intraoral mask comparing to classic face mask in terms of successful ventilation (P = .000) and tidal volume (P = .000). Leak volume in in intraoral mask ventilation was significantly lower than classic face mask (P = .000). Difficult mask ventilation risk factors for classic face mask were high weight (P = .011), neck circumference (95% CI, OR = 1.180, P = .002), Mallampati score (P = .029) and high risk of OSAS (P = .001). Difficult mask ventilation risk factors for intraoral mask were high body mass index (95% CI, OR 1.162 P = .006) and Mallampati score (P = .043). The anxiety ratings of practitioners were similar between two masks. The workload rating is higher with intraoral mask comparing to classic face mask.
CONCLUSION
Intraoral mask may be an effective alternative device for bag-valve mask ventilation.
Collapse