Shukla Kamalendra, Parikh Badal, Kumar Alok, Nakra Monish
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Dwarka, New Delhi, India.
Department of Critical Care, Venkateshwar Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi, India.
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Oct-Dec;37(4):648-654. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_371_20. Epub 2022 Jan 6.
High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has numerous advantages against conventional oxygen therapy delivery systems. However, there is limited evidence supporting the use of HFNC in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) under procedural sedation. The aims of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of two different oxygen delivery devices, that is,HFNCand conventional nasal cannula on the oxygenation status of patients during procedural sedation for EUS.
Sixty adult patients undergoing EUS for various ailments were randomized to two groups group HFNC (=30) and group nasal cannula [NC ( = 30)]. HFNC (AIRVO2, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, New Zealand) was used on patients in the group HFNC. Respiratory status of the patients was assessed using pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, procedural airway complications, and oxygen therapy adjustments. The endoscopist assessed the ease of performing EUS at the end of the procedure and patient satisfaction score (PSS) was assessed by using a Likert score in the post-anesthesia care unit.
SpO2 measurements in the HFNC group during the procedure were marginally better compared to the NC group but this failed to reach statistical significance. Also, no significant association was found between both groups while comparing desaturation events ( = 0.499), patient satisfaction score (PSS) and endendoscopist's satisfaction score (ESS) ( = 0.795). Both the groups were comparable in terms of airway manipulation, use of airway adjuncts, need to increase oxygen flow rate, endoscope removal, apneic episodes, hypotension, and bradycardia. No major complications were observed in either group.
HFNC use in patients undergoing EUS is not superior when compared to conventional nasal cannula oxygen therapy. HFNC failed to show any significant impact on decreasing the risk of desaturation events and airway manipulation during the procedure.
与传统氧疗输送系统相比,高流量鼻导管(HFNC)有诸多优势。然而,支持在程序镇静下内镜超声(EUS)中使用HFNC的证据有限。本研究的目的是评估两种不同的氧输送装置,即HFNC和传统鼻导管,在EUS程序镇静期间对患者氧合状态的疗效。
60例因各种疾病接受EUS检查的成年患者被随机分为两组,HFNC组(n = 30)和鼻导管组[NC组(n = 30)]。HFNC组患者使用HFNC(AIRVO2,费雪派克医疗保健公司,新西兰)。使用脉搏血氧饱和度仪、呼吸频率、操作过程中的气道并发症和氧疗调整来评估患者的呼吸状态。内镜医师在操作结束时评估进行EUS的难易程度,并在麻醉后护理单元使用李克特评分评估患者满意度评分(PSS)。
与NC组相比,HFNC组在操作过程中的SpO2测量值略好,但未达到统计学意义。此外,在比较去饱和事件(P = 0.499)、患者满意度评分(PSS)和内镜医师满意度评分(ESS)(P = 0.795)时,两组之间未发现显著关联。两组在气道操作、气道辅助工具的使用、增加氧流速的需求、内镜取出、呼吸暂停发作、低血压和心动过缓方面具有可比性。两组均未观察到重大并发症。
与传统鼻导管氧疗相比,在接受EUS的患者中使用HFNC并无优势。HFNC未能显示出对降低操作过程中去饱和事件风险和气道操作有任何显著影响。