Related Experiment Videos
Demand valve ventilation in a swine pneumothorax model
J M Murray1, D C Seaberg, J J Menegazzi
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
|January 1, 1996
Summary
Oxygen-powered demand valve (OPDV) and bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation showed no significant differences in managing pneumothorax in swine. Both methods were safe and did not worsen lung injury or cause tension pneumothorax.
Area of Science:
- Emergency Medicine
- Pulmonary Medicine
- Veterinary Critical Care
Background:
- Bag-valve-mask (BVM) and oxygen-powered demand valve (OPDV) are crucial for artificial ventilation.
- Concerns exist regarding OPDV use potentially causing or exacerbating pneumothorax.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effects of OPDV and BVM ventilation on pneumothorax in a swine model.
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of these ventilation methods in the presence of induced pneumothorax.
Main Methods:
- A randomized crossover study was conducted on five female swine.
- Pneumothorax was induced, and animals underwent ventilation with both OPDV and BVM for 10 minutes each.
- Measurements included pneumothorax volume, hemodynamics, end-tidal CO2, and arterial blood gases.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in post-ventilation pneumothorax volume between OPDV (310.8 mL) and BVM (315.4 mL).
- No significant differences in heart rate, blood pressure, or arterial blood gases between the two ventilation methods.
- Both methods showed a decrease in end-tidal CO2, but without significant inter-group differences. No tension pneumothorax was observed.
Conclusions:
- In this swine model, OPDV and BVM ventilation demonstrated comparable effects on pneumothorax volume and hemodynamic stability.
- Neither ventilation method worsened existing pneumothorax or led to adverse events like tension pneumothorax.