The role of advanced airway management (AAM) in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is currently debated as observational studies reported better outcomes after bag-mask ventilation (BMV), and the only prospective randomized trial was inconclusive. Adherence to CPR guidelines ventilation recommendations is unknown and difficult to assess in clinical trials. This study compared AAM and BMV with regard to adherence to ventilation recommendations and chest compression fractions in simulated cardiac arrests. A total of 154 teams of 3-4 physicians were randomized to perform CPR with resuscitation equipment restricting airway management to BMV only or equipment allowing for all forms of AAM. BMV teams ventilated 6 ± 6/min and AAM teams 19 ± 8/min (range 3-42/min; p < 0.0001 vs. BMV). 68/78 BMV teams and 23/71 AAM teams adhered to the ventilation recommendations (p < 0.0001). BMV teams had lower compression fractions than AAM teams (78 ± 7% vs. 86 ± 6%, p < 0.0001) resulting entirely from higher no-flow times for ventilation (9 ± 4% vs. 3 ± 3 %; p < 0.0001). Compared to BMV, AAM leads to significant hyperventilation and lower adherence to ventilation recommendations but favourable compression fractions. The cumulative effect of deviations from ventilation recommendations has the potential to blur findings in clinical trials.
Keywords: advanced airway management; bag-mask ventilation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; randomized controlled trial; simulation.