Comparison of Muscle Exertion and Fatigue Between Standard Bag Valve Mask and NuMask

Abstract

Ventilation is an important part of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by medical professionals. The self-inflating bag valve mask (BVM) is often used to deliver rescue breaths during CPR. As resuscitation may last for extended periods of time, it is important that the equipment used reduces the potential of operator fatigue, which could lead to decreased performance and substandard patient care. The NuMask is an intraoral mask designed as an alternative to the pre-inflated mask typically used with a BVM. This pilot study uses muscle exertion electromyography, Borg’s CR10 pain scale, and a Likert-scale questionnaire to compare muscle contraction, fatigue, and user preference between these two interfaces when ventilating a difficult airway mannequin. No significant differences were found in muscle pain or interface preference, but significantly lower muscular exertion by the non-dominant thenar eminence when using the NuMask suggests this interface could reduce user fatigue during extended periods of ventilation. A larger, more conclusive study is necessary to confirm these results.

Comparison of intraoral mask and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success and practitioners' workload assessments: A randomised crossover study

“…There are very few studies in the scientific literature that discuss the effectiveness of the intraoral mask. [12][13][14][15]17,22 The comparisons in terms of the effectiveness of masks in our study are consistent with previous cadaver studies. 13,15,17,22 According to these results, it can be assumed that intraoral mask may have some advantages in difficult mask ventilation situations caused by air leakage due to improper seal.…”

Comparison of intra-oral mask and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success and practitioners’ work load assessments: a randomized crossover study

“…There are conflicting results in the literature regarding users' evaluation of intraoral and classic masks. In the study of Riggle et al 12 conducted on the airway training manikin, the average muscle pain perceived by the practitioners for both masks was statistically insignificant and most of the practitioners preferred the classical mask; stated that it is easier to grasp, less fatigue and easier to use with the classical mask. The practitioners' evaluations in this study 12 are consistent with the results of our study.…”

“…There are very few studies in the scientific literature that discuss the effectiveness of the intraoral mask [12][13][14][15]17,22 . The comparisons in terms of the effectiveness of masks in our study are consistent with previous cadaver studies 13,15,17,22 .…”

“…The main difference of our study from others 12,13,15,17,22 is that it was performed on real patients under operating room conditions and both masks were used in a large series of patients. Although there are many studies investigating the risk factors for difficult mask ventilation in the literature 3,8,9 , to our knowledge our study is the first study investigating these risk factors for intraoral mask together with the classic mask in the same patient group.…”

“…IOM may have advantages in situations as improper seal with the CFM. IOM also may have some advantages for preoxygenization and can be used for non-invasive ventilation [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (Figure 2).…”