Abstract 75: Mouth-to-Face-Shield Ventilation Impairs CPR Quality Compared to Mouth-to-Pocket-Mask Ventilation: A Randomized Study

Objective: Effective ventilations are essential when resuscitating a drowning victim. Ventilation is necessary to treat hypoxia however interruptions in chest compressions should be minimized. Surf lifeguards may be reluctant to perform rescue breathing using mouth-to-mouth ventilation. Using a face shield or face mask may be reasonable. The most optimal ventilation technique among surf lifeguards is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (MFV) and mouth-to-pocket mask ventilation (MPV) on CPR quality.

Methods: We invited professional paid surf lifeguards to participate in the study. Each surf lifeguard was randomized to perform 2 x 3 minutes of single-rescuer CPR on a resuscitation manikin using MFV (AMBU® LifeKey) and MPV (Laerdal Pocket MaskTM). Data were collected from resuscitation manikin and from video recordings.

Results: In total 30 surf lifeguards were included (mean age: 25.1 year; 21 male, 9 female). MFV (mean±s.d.: 8.6+/-1.7 s) significantly increased interruptions in chest compressions compared to MPV ventilation (6.9+/-1.2 s, p<0.0001). The proportion of effective ventilations (visible chest rise) was reduced using MFV (82%) compared to MPV (100%, p=0.0002). Tidal volume was higher using MPV (0.45+/-0.20 L) compared to MFV (0.36+/-0.20 L, p= 0.006). No differences in inspiratory times were observed between MFV and MPV.

Conclusion: MFV increases interruptions in chest compressions, reduces the proportion of effective ventilations and decreases delivered tidal volumes when compared to MPV. This suggests that CPR quality is impaired using MFV compared to MPV among surf lifeguards.