Efficacy of Amflow®, a Real-Time-Portable Feedback Device for Delivering Appropriate Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomised, Controlled, Cross-Over Simulation Study

Table 1

Comparable data of ventilations between the feedback (using Amflow®) and the no-feedback group.

Scenario	Parameters	Feedback	No feedback	value
Adult respiratory distress syndrome (350 ml, 20/min)	Tidal volume (ml); mean ± SD	361.14 ± 34.09	412.57 ± 67.07	<0.001
	Frequency of accurate volume range; no. (%)	2806/4789 (58.6)	895/3807 (23.5)	<0.001
	Respiration rate per min; median (25%, 75%)	20 (20, 20)	16.9 (11.6, 19.2)	<0.001
	Frequency of accurate rate; no. (%)	212/240 (88.3)	14/240 (5.8)	<0.001
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (500 ml, 10/min)	Tidal volume (ml); mean ± SD	505.56 ± 32.21	534.15 ± 73.54	0.012
	Frequency of accurate volume range; no. (%)	2052/2402 (85.4)	975/2380 (41.0)	<0.001
	Respiration rate per min; median (25%, 75%)	10 (10, 10)	9.4 (8.2, 12.2)	0.619
	Frequency of accurate rate; no. (%)	238/240 (99.2)	30/240 (12.5)	<0.001
Head trauma with the normal lung (700 ml, 15/min)	Tidal volume (ml); mean ± SD	656.64 ± 60.37	684.88 ± 53.04	0.013
	Frequency of accurate volume range; no. (%)	2368/3593 (65.9)	2296/3361 (68.3)	0.092
	Respiration rate per min; median (25%, 75%)	15 (15, 15)	13.8 (11.4, 16.8)	0.104
	Frequency of accurate rate; no. (%)	231/240 (96.3)	24/240 (10)	<0.001