内窥镜粘膜下剥离术深度镇静期间高流量鼻插管与传统鼻插管的比较:随机对照试验。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Anesthesia Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-02 DOI:10.1007/s00540-024-03352-2
Seungwon Lee, Ji Won Choi, In Sun Chung, Tae Jun Kim, Woo Seog Sim, Seojin Park, Hyun Joo Ahn
{"title":"内窥镜粘膜下剥离术深度镇静期间高流量鼻插管与传统鼻插管的比较:随机对照试验。","authors":"Seungwon Lee, Ji Won Choi, In Sun Chung, Tae Jun Kim, Woo Seog Sim, Seojin Park, Hyun Joo Ahn","doi":"10.1007/s00540-024-03352-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Adequate oxygenation and airway management during deep sedation can be challenging. We investigated the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (group HF) and conventional nasal cannula (group CO) during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing ESD with deep sedation were enrolled. The primary outcome was difference in lowest oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>) between the groups. Incidence of hypoxia (SpO<sub>2</sub> < 90%), patients with SpO<sub>2</sub> < 95%, hypercapnia, and airway interventions; operator satisfaction; and adverse events were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two patients in each group completed the study. The mean of minimum SpO<sub>2</sub> values was significantly higher in group HF than in group CO (96.8% ± 4.2% vs. 93.3% ± 5.3%, p = 0.005). The incidence of hypoxia was comparable between the groups (4 [12.5%] vs. 6 [18.8%], p = 0.491); however, patients with SpO<sub>2</sub> < 95% were significantly less in group HF (5 [15.6%] vs. 18 [56.3%], p = 0.003). Incidence of hypercapnia was higher in group HF than in group CO (14 [46.7%] vs. 5 [16.7%], p = 0.013). Airway rescue interventions were significantly less common in group HF. Satisfaction of operators and post-procedural complications were comparable between the two groups. In multivariable analysis, group CO and higher body mass index were risk factors for airway managements (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 6.204 [1.784-21.575], p = 0.004; 1.337 [1.043-1.715], p = 0.022, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to conventional nasal cannula, high-flow nasal cannula maintained higher minimum SpO<sub>2</sub> value during deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil for ESD.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Trial Registry of the Republic of Korea (KCT0006618, https://cris.nih.go.kr ; registered September 29, 2021; principal investigator: Ji Won Choi).</p>","PeriodicalId":14997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia","volume":" ","pages":"591-599"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during deep sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Seungwon Lee, Ji Won Choi, In Sun Chung, Tae Jun Kim, Woo Seog Sim, Seojin Park, Hyun Joo Ahn\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00540-024-03352-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Adequate oxygenation and airway management during deep sedation can be challenging. We investigated the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (group HF) and conventional nasal cannula (group CO) during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing ESD with deep sedation were enrolled. The primary outcome was difference in lowest oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>) between the groups. Incidence of hypoxia (SpO<sub>2</sub> < 90%), patients with SpO<sub>2</sub> < 95%, hypercapnia, and airway interventions; operator satisfaction; and adverse events were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two patients in each group completed the study. The mean of minimum SpO<sub>2</sub> values was significantly higher in group HF than in group CO (96.8% ± 4.2% vs. 93.3% ± 5.3%, p = 0.005). The incidence of hypoxia was comparable between the groups (4 [12.5%] vs. 6 [18.8%], p = 0.491); however, patients with SpO<sub>2</sub> < 95% were significantly less in group HF (5 [15.6%] vs. 18 [56.3%], p = 0.003). Incidence of hypercapnia was higher in group HF than in group CO (14 [46.7%] vs. 5 [16.7%], p = 0.013). Airway rescue interventions were significantly less common in group HF. Satisfaction of operators and post-procedural complications were comparable between the two groups. In multivariable analysis, group CO and higher body mass index were risk factors for airway managements (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 6.204 [1.784-21.575], p = 0.004; 1.337 [1.043-1.715], p = 0.022, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to conventional nasal cannula, high-flow nasal cannula maintained higher minimum SpO<sub>2</sub> value during deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil for ESD.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Trial Registry of the Republic of Korea (KCT0006618, https://cris.nih.go.kr ; registered September 29, 2021; principal investigator: Ji Won Choi).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anesthesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"591-599\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-024-03352-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-024-03352-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:深度镇静期间的充分氧合和气道管理具有挑战性。我们研究了内镜粘膜下剥离术(ESD)镇静期间使用高流量鼻插管(HF 组)和传统鼻插管(CO 组)的效果:方法:对接受深度镇静的ESD患者进行了登记。主要结果是两组最低血氧饱和度(SpO2)的差异。缺氧发生率(SpO2 2 结果:每组有 32 名患者完成了研究。高频组的最低 SpO2 平均值明显高于 CO 组(96.8% ± 4.2% vs. 93.3% ± 5.3%,P = 0.005)。两组患者的缺氧发生率相当(4 [12.5%] vs. 6 [18.8%],p = 0.491);但是,SpO2 低的患者的缺氧发生率较高:与传统鼻插管相比,在使用异丙酚-瑞芬太尼进行ESD深度镇静时,高流量鼻插管能维持更高的最小SpO2值:试验注册:大韩民国临床试验注册中心(KCT0006618,https://cris.nih.go.kr;注册日期:2021年9月29日;主要研究者:Ji Won Choi):试验注册:大韩民国临床试验登记处(KCT0006618,注册日期:2021 年 9 月 29 日;主要研究者:Ji Won Choi)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during deep sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial.

Purpose: Adequate oxygenation and airway management during deep sedation can be challenging. We investigated the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (group HF) and conventional nasal cannula (group CO) during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

Methods: Patients undergoing ESD with deep sedation were enrolled. The primary outcome was difference in lowest oxygen saturation (SpO2) between the groups. Incidence of hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%), patients with SpO2 < 95%, hypercapnia, and airway interventions; operator satisfaction; and adverse events were recorded.

Results: Thirty-two patients in each group completed the study. The mean of minimum SpO2 values was significantly higher in group HF than in group CO (96.8% ± 4.2% vs. 93.3% ± 5.3%, p = 0.005). The incidence of hypoxia was comparable between the groups (4 [12.5%] vs. 6 [18.8%], p = 0.491); however, patients with SpO2 < 95% were significantly less in group HF (5 [15.6%] vs. 18 [56.3%], p = 0.003). Incidence of hypercapnia was higher in group HF than in group CO (14 [46.7%] vs. 5 [16.7%], p = 0.013). Airway rescue interventions were significantly less common in group HF. Satisfaction of operators and post-procedural complications were comparable between the two groups. In multivariable analysis, group CO and higher body mass index were risk factors for airway managements (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 6.204 [1.784-21.575], p = 0.004; 1.337 [1.043-1.715], p = 0.022, respectively).

Conclusions: Compared to conventional nasal cannula, high-flow nasal cannula maintained higher minimum SpO2 value during deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil for ESD.

Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry of the Republic of Korea (KCT0006618, https://cris.nih.go.kr ; registered September 29, 2021; principal investigator: Ji Won Choi).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Anesthesia
Journal of Anesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anesthesia is the official journal of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists. This journal publishes original articles, review articles, special articles, clinical reports, short communications, letters to the editor, and book and multimedia reviews. The editors welcome the submission of manuscripts devoted to anesthesia and related topics from any country of the world. Membership in the Society is not a prerequisite. The Journal of Anesthesia (JA) welcomes case reports that show unique cases in perioperative medicine, intensive care, emergency medicine, and pain management.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Decrease of the peak heights of EEG bicoherence indicated insufficiency of analgesia during surgery under general anesthesia. Advantages of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean delivery. McGRATH MAC size 1 vs. 2 blades: infant intubation time. Radial artery catheterization using a novel T-type ultrasound probe: a single-center randomized study. Vasopressors against post-spinal anesthesia hypotension.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1