Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Self-inflating bag or Mapleson C breathing system for emergency pre-oxygenation?
  1. R A Stafford1,
  2. J R Benger1,
  3. J Nolan2
  1. 1
    Emergency Department, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK
  2. 2
    Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK
  1. Dr R Stafford, Accident & Emergency Department, New Cross Hospital. Wolverhampton WV10 0QP, UK; robstafford{at}doctors.org.uk

Abstract

Background: A crossover study was performed in healthy volunteers to compare the efficacy of a self-inflating bag with the Mapleson C breathing system for pre-oxygenation.

Method: 20 subjects breathed 100% oxygen for 3 min using each device, with a 30 min washout period. The end tidal oxygen concentration and subjective ease of breathing were compared.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in performance between the two devices, with the Mapleson C providing higher end expiratory oxygen concentrations at 3 min. The mean (SD) end expiratory oxygen concentration was 74.2 (3.8)% for the self-inflating bag (95% CI 72.4% to 75.9%) and 86.2 (3.7)% for the Mapleson C system (95% CI 84.5 to 88.0); p<0.0001. The 95% CI of the difference between the mean values for end expiratory oxygen concentration at 3 min was 10.0% to 14.2%. There was also a statistically significant difference in the subjective ease of breathing, favouring the Mapleson C system.

Conclusion: The Mapleson C breathing system is more effective and subjectively easier to breathe through than a self-inflating bag when used for pre-oxygenation. However, these benefits must be weighed against the increased level of skill required and possible complications when using a Mapleson C breathing system.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Funding: This research was supported by charitable grants from the Mason Medical Research Foundation and the UK College of Emergency Medicine.

  • Competing interests: None.