Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-2 (2)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Evaluation of the self-inflating bag-valve-mask and non-rebreather mask as preoxygenation devices in volunteers 
BMJ Open  2012;2(5):e001785.
To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and tolerability of preoxygenation with the self-inflating bag-valve-mask (BVM) and non-rebreather mask (NRM) as are used before emergency anaesthesia.
Device performance evaluation.
Experimental study.
12 male and 12 female healthy volunteers (age range 24–47) with no history of clinically significant respiratory disease.
End-expiration oxygen measurements (FEO2) after 3 min of preoxygenation with BVM (without mechanical assistance) and NRM devices. Mask pressures were measured and subjective difficulty of breathing was also assessed with a visual analogue score (VAS).
Primary and secondary outcome measures
The final FEO2 achieved was 58.0% (SD 7.3%) for the NRM compared to 53.1% (SD 13.4%) for the BVM (p=0.072). Preoxygenation was associated with small increases in FECO2 that were greater for the BVM (0.50%; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.52) than the NRM (0.29%; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.28); this difference was statistically significant (p=0.028). Both devices were well tolerated on VAS assessment of difficulty of breathing although this was higher for the BVM than the NRM (median VAS 1.85/10 compared to 1.1/10; p=0.041). Inspiratory and expiratory mask pressures were higher for the BVM.
In healthy volunteers, the NRM performs comparably to the BVM in terms of the degree of denitrogenation achieved although neither performed well. Although it was well tolerated, the BVM was subjectively more difficult to breathe through and was associated with greater mask pressures and a small increase in FECO2 consistent with hypoventilation or rebreathing. Our results suggest that preoxygenation with the NRM may be a preferable approach in spontaneously breathing patients.
PMCID: PMC3488733  PMID: 23103607
Accident & Emergency Medicine
2.  Assessment of post-operative pain in children: who knows best? 
Pediatric Reports  2012;4(1):e10.
Pain assessment in children can be extremely challenging. Most professional bodies recommend that parents or carers should be involved with their child's pain assessment; but the evidence that parents can accurately report pain on behalf of their children is mixed. Our objective was to examine whether there were differences in post-operative pain score ratings between the child, nurse and parent or carer after surgery. Cognitively intact children aged four upwards, undergoing all surgical procedures, whose parents were present in the post-anaesthetic recovery unit (PACU), were studied. Thirty-three children were included in the study. The numerical rating scale was used to rate the child's pain by the child, nurse and parent on arrival to the PACU and prior to discharge. We found strong correlations between children's, nurses' and parent's pain scores on admission and discharge from PACU. The intraclass correlation coefficient of pain scores reported by children, nurses and parents was 0.94 (95% confidence intervals 0.91-0.96, P<0.0001). In cognitively intact children, it is adequate to manage pain based upon the assessment of children's and nurses' pain scores alone. The numerical rating scale appeared to be suitable for younger children. Whilst there are benefits of parents being present in recovery, it is not essential for optimizing the assessment of pain.
PMCID: PMC3357609  PMID: 22690302
pain measurement; nursing; postoperative diagnosis; child behavior; parents; psychology.

Results 1-2 (2)