Abut Yesim Cokay, Kisa Ece
Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul Education and Training Hospital (SUAM), University of Health Sciences, Turkey.
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2025 Mar;34(3):337-342. doi: 10.17219/acem/188259.
Preoxygenation is very important to protect the patient from hypoxia before intubation. However, pulse oximetry has some limitations in detecting hypoxia.
We aimed to compare the effectiveness of 2 preoxygenation techniques based on oxygen reserve index (ORI) levels.
Twenty healthy male volunteers were included in the study. They inhaled 100% FiO2 oxygen administered at 5 L/min as the 1st technique (M1) with a ventilation mask as much as their tidal volumes for 3 min. The 2nd technique (M2) applied 100% FiO2 oxygen at 10 L/min flow using the same mask and 8 deep inspiratory volumes, which was aimed to be completed within 1 min. Maximum ORI levels, duration to reach that level, and time needed to reach the target ORI level (0.35) and return back to the "0" were measured.
In the M1 group, ORI levels were significantly higher during and after 60 s, according to post hoc tests. In the M2 groups, ORI levels were significantly higher during and after the 4th inspiration, according to post hoc tests. Oxygen reserve index values at the 60th 2nd (M1) and 8th inspiration (M2) were compared as the 8th inspiration corresponded to the 60th second. The maximum ORI values were significantly lower in the M1 group compared to the M2 group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). Seven volunteers (36.8%) in the M1 group and 2 volunteers (10.5%) in the M2 group could not reach the target ORI (McNemar's test, test statistic 3.2, degrees of freedom (df) = 1, p = 0.063). The time to reach the target ORI value and to reach maximum ORI values was significantly longer in the M1 group than in the M2 group (p = 0.008 and p < 0.001, respectively).
We observed that the 8-deep breath technique is more effective in preoxygenation compared to the 3-min tidal volume technique.
预充氧对于在插管前保护患者免受缺氧影响非常重要。然而,脉搏血氧饱和度测定在检测缺氧方面存在一些局限性。
我们旨在比较基于氧储备指数(ORI)水平的两种预充氧技术的有效性。
20名健康男性志愿者纳入本研究。他们作为第一种技术(M1),使用通气面罩以5L/min的流量吸入100%的FiO2氧气,持续3分钟,吸入量与潮气量相同。第二种技术(M2)使用相同的面罩,以10L/min的流量给予100%的FiO2氧气,并进行8次深吸气,目标是在1分钟内完成。测量最大ORI水平、达到该水平的持续时间以及达到目标ORI水平(0.35)并恢复到“0”所需的时间。
根据事后检验,在M1组中,60秒期间及之后的ORI水平显著更高。在M2组中,根据事后检验,在第4次吸气期间及之后的ORI水平显著更高。由于第8次吸气对应于第60秒,因此比较了第60秒(M1)和第8次吸气(M2)时的氧储备指数值。与M2组相比,M1组的最大ORI值显著更低(分别为p<0.001和p = 0.006)。M1组中有7名志愿者(36.8%),M2组中有2名志愿者(10.5%)未达到目标ORI(McNemar检验,检验统计量3.2,自由度(df)= 1,p = 0.063)。M1组达到目标ORI值和达到最大ORI值的时间显著长于M2组(分别为p = 0.008和p<0.001)。
我们观察到,与3分钟潮气量技术相比,8次深呼吸技术在预充氧方面更有效。