HP2 Laboratory, U1042, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
Pôle Anesthésie-Réanimation, Réanimation Cardiovasculaire et Thoracique, CHU Grenoble Alpes, CS 10217, Grenoble Cedex 9, France.
Can J Anaesth. 2023 Jul;70(7):1182-1193. doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02495-2. Epub 2023 Jun 2.
The efficacy of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during procedures that require sedation and analgesia has not been established. We evaluated whether NIV reduces the incidence of respiratory events.
In this randomized controlled trial, we included 195 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status of III or IV during electrophysiology laboratory procedures. We compared NIV with face mask oxygen therapy for patients under sedation. The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory events determined by a computer-driven blinded analysis and defined by hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) or apnea/hypopnea (absence of breathing for 20 sec on capnography). Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, sedation, patient safety (composite scores of major or minor adverse events), and adverse outcomes at day 7.
A respiratory event occurred in 89/98 (95%) patients in the NIV group and in 69/97 (73%) patients with face masks (risk ratio [RR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.47; P < 0.001). Hypoxemia occurred in 40 (42%) patients in the NIV group and in 33 (34%) patients with face masks (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.74; P = 0.30). Apnea/hypopnea occurred in 83 patients (92%) in the NIV group vs 65 patients (70%) with face masks (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.53; P < 0.001). Hemodynamic variables, sedation, major or minor safety events, and patient outcomes were not different between the groups.
Respiratory events were more frequent among patients receiving NIV without any safety or outcome impairment. These results do not support the routine use of NIV intraoperatively.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02779998); registered 4 November 2015.
在需要镇静和镇痛的操作中,无创通气(NIV)的疗效尚未确定。我们评估了 NIV 是否可以降低呼吸事件的发生率。
在这项随机对照试验中,我们纳入了在电生理实验室操作期间美国麻醉医师协会身体状况为 III 级或 IV 级的 195 名患者。我们将 NIV 与镇静下的面罩吸氧进行了比较。主要结局是通过计算机驱动的盲法分析确定的呼吸事件发生率,定义为低氧血症(外周血氧饱和度<90%)或呼吸暂停/低通气(呼吸暂停 20 秒,二氧化碳描记图上无呼吸)。次要结局包括血流动力学变量、镇静、患者安全性(主要或次要不良事件的综合评分)以及第 7 天的不良结局。
NIV 组 89/98(95%)例患者和面罩组 69/97(73%)例患者发生呼吸事件(风险比[RR],1.29;95%置信区间[CI],1.13 至 1.47;P<0.001)。NIV 组 40 例(42%)患者和面罩组 33 例(34%)患者发生低氧血症(RR,1.21;95%CI,0.84 至 1.74;P=0.30)。NIV 组 83 例(92%)患者发生呼吸暂停/低通气,面罩组 65 例(70%)患者发生呼吸暂停/低通气(RR,1.32;95%CI,1.14 至 1.53;P<0.001)。两组间血流动力学变量、镇静、主要或次要安全性事件以及患者结局均无差异。
接受 NIV 的患者呼吸事件更为频繁,但无安全性或结局受损。这些结果不支持术中常规使用 NIV。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02779998);注册日期:2015 年 11 月 4 日。