2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100327
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Respiratory function monitoring during neonatal resuscitation: A systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The limitations of this study are as follows: (1) generalisation to human studies may not show similar findings, more research is required to demonstrate the value of RFMs in training staff; (2) no subjects were in the ‘first responder’ experience level, we speculate a greater benefit with first responder use; (3) no user adjustments of PIP when using TPR to increase tidal volumes (figure 2) leading to low values, whereas with SIB the volume was adjusted dynamically by squeeze distance. Contributing to this could have also been the lung compliance of the manikins used not being anatomically correct 4 22. It was not possible to tell if subjects used the tidal volume icon range or displayed volume as we did not use video recordings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The limitations of this study are as follows: (1) generalisation to human studies may not show similar findings, more research is required to demonstrate the value of RFMs in training staff; (2) no subjects were in the ‘first responder’ experience level, we speculate a greater benefit with first responder use; (3) no user adjustments of PIP when using TPR to increase tidal volumes (figure 2) leading to low values, whereas with SIB the volume was adjusted dynamically by squeeze distance. Contributing to this could have also been the lung compliance of the manikins used not being anatomically correct 4 22. It was not possible to tell if subjects used the tidal volume icon range or displayed volume as we did not use video recordings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Juno is a lightweight (85 g), inline, battery-driven (run-time 5 hours) RFM. The Juno monitor studied was a pre-commercial prototype (SW V.0.2.4) displaying: mask leak grouped by a traffic light LED panel (green reflecting leak from 0% to 29.9%, orange 30% to 59.9% and red ≥60% to 100%) with ranges based on leak significance reported in previous studies2 4 13; deflation tidal volume in millilitres as well as baby range icons (small 2.5–9.9 mL, medium 10–24.9 mL and large 25–50 mL) estimated based on resuscitation guidelines and inflation rate per minute 14. Displayed data is updated for each inflation in real time.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Current ILCOR consensus on the use of RFM is based on devices not commercially available, 4 8 20 and are complex systems with GUI’s more suited to ICU and anesthetic domains than birthing environments where unexpected resuscitation is common. First responders have less experience than neonatal staff who may take valuable minutes to arrive on the scene.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Respiratory function monitors have been used in many manikin and human infant studies to quantitate mask seal as a prerequisite to appropriate delivered tidal volumes. 4 5 Most studies have used either the commercial Philips NM3 or the Acutronics Florian RFM or research RFMs that inform current guidelines on RFM use during newborn resuscitation. 6-10 They are expensive, heavy and complex monitors that require expert knowledge to use and are no longer commercially available.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%