Transnasal Humidified Rapid-Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange versus Oropharyngeal Airway-Assisted Face-Mask Ventilation for Gastric Insufflation During Induction of General Anesthesia in Patients at High Risk for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2026-06-26 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S608591
Zhe Jia, Yangfei Xu, Can Zhang, Huifang Jiang, Yingying Han, Xiaohong Yuan, Hongwei Wang, Kangjie Xie
{"title":"Transnasal Humidified Rapid-Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange versus Oropharyngeal Airway-Assisted Face-Mask Ventilation for Gastric Insufflation During Induction of General Anesthesia in Patients at High Risk for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.","authors":"Zhe Jia, Yangfei Xu, Can Zhang, Huifang Jiang, Yingying Han, Xiaohong Yuan, Hongwei Wang, Kangjie Xie","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S608591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an independent risk factor for gastric insufflation during the induction of general anesthesia. We aimed to compare the impact of oropharyngeal airway-assisted face-mask ventilation and transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange (THRIVE) on gastric insufflation in patients with high-risk OSA.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients at high risk for OSA scheduled for elective major abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were randomized 1:1 to either Group T (THRIVE throughout induction) or Group M (face-mask preoxygenation followed by oropharyngeal airway-assisted pressure-controlled ventilation). Gastric antrum ultrasonography was performed at baseline (T<sub>1</sub>), after preoxygenation (T<sub>2</sub>), and post-intubation (T<sub>4</sub>) to assess changes of antral cross-sectional area (CSAa). Arterial blood gases were analyzed at T<sub>1</sub>, T<sub>2</sub>, after induction during ventilation/apnea (T<sub>3</sub>), and T<sub>4</sub>. Adverse events and patient comfort were recorded. The primary outcome was the incidence of gastric insufflation at T<sub>4</sub>. Secondary outcomes included CSAa percentage change, oxygenation and arterial blood gas variables, adverse events, and patient comfort.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 100 randomized patients, 94 completed the study (47 per group). Group T demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of gastric insufflation post-intubation compared to Group M (23.4% vs 44.7%; <i>P</i> = 0.030) and a smaller median percentage increase in antral cross-sectional area (7.62% vs 13.24%; <i>P</i> = 0.070). THRIVE provided superior preoxygenation (higher PaO<sub>2</sub> at T<sub>2</sub>, <i>P</i> < 0.001). During apnea (T<sub>3</sub>-T<sub>4</sub>), Group T maintained adequate oxygenation (SpO<sub>2</sub> >92%) without mechanical ventilation but developed mild hypercapnia, which was expected to improve following continued mechanical ventilation after intubation. Adverse event rates were non-significant (<i>P</i> = 1.000). Patient comfort scores were significantly higher in Group T (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients at high risk for OSA, THRIVE reduces the incidence of gastric insufflation during induction compared with oropharyngeal airway-assisted face-mask ventilation. THRIVE improves preoxygenation and patient comfort. Oxygenation was maintained during apnea, with a transient increase in PaCO<sub>2</sub> observed after intubation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":"22 ","pages":"608591"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13317547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S608591","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an independent risk factor for gastric insufflation during the induction of general anesthesia. We aimed to compare the impact of oropharyngeal airway-assisted face-mask ventilation and transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange (THRIVE) on gastric insufflation in patients with high-risk OSA.

Patients and methods: Patients at high risk for OSA scheduled for elective major abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were randomized 1:1 to either Group T (THRIVE throughout induction) or Group M (face-mask preoxygenation followed by oropharyngeal airway-assisted pressure-controlled ventilation). Gastric antrum ultrasonography was performed at baseline (T1), after preoxygenation (T2), and post-intubation (T4) to assess changes of antral cross-sectional area (CSAa). Arterial blood gases were analyzed at T1, T2, after induction during ventilation/apnea (T3), and T4. Adverse events and patient comfort were recorded. The primary outcome was the incidence of gastric insufflation at T4. Secondary outcomes included CSAa percentage change, oxygenation and arterial blood gas variables, adverse events, and patient comfort.

Results: Of 100 randomized patients, 94 completed the study (47 per group). Group T demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of gastric insufflation post-intubation compared to Group M (23.4% vs 44.7%; P = 0.030) and a smaller median percentage increase in antral cross-sectional area (7.62% vs 13.24%; P = 0.070). THRIVE provided superior preoxygenation (higher PaO2 at T2, P < 0.001). During apnea (T3-T4), Group T maintained adequate oxygenation (SpO2 >92%) without mechanical ventilation but developed mild hypercapnia, which was expected to improve following continued mechanical ventilation after intubation. Adverse event rates were non-significant (P = 1.000). Patient comfort scores were significantly higher in Group T (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: In patients at high risk for OSA, THRIVE reduces the incidence of gastric insufflation during induction compared with oropharyngeal airway-assisted face-mask ventilation. THRIVE improves preoxygenation and patient comfort. Oxygenation was maintained during apnea, with a transient increase in PaCO2 observed after intubation.

梗阻性睡眠呼吸暂停高危患者全麻诱导时经鼻加湿快速充气换气与口咽气道辅助面罩通气胃内充气的比较
目的:阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)是全麻诱导过程中胃内充气的独立危险因素。我们的目的是比较口咽气道辅助面罩通气和经鼻加湿快速充气通气交换(THRIVE)对高危OSA患者胃内充气的影响。患者和方法:计划在全麻下进行选择性腹部大手术的OSA高风险患者按1:1随机分为T组(贯穿诱导的THRIVE)或M组(面罩预充氧后口咽气道辅助压力控制通气)。分别在基线(T1)、预充氧后(T2)和插管后(T4)行胃窦超声检查,评估胃窦横断面积(CSAa)的变化。在T1、T2、通气/呼吸暂停诱导后(T3)和T4时分析动脉血气。记录不良事件和患者舒适度。主要观察指标为T4期胃胀气发生率。次要结局包括CSAa百分比变化、氧合和动脉血气变量、不良事件和患者舒适度。结果:在100例随机患者中,94例完成了研究(每组47例)。与M组相比,T组插管后胃注气发生率明显降低(23.4% vs 44.7%, P = 0.030),胃窦横截面积中位百分比增加较小(7.62% vs 13.24%, P = 0.070)。THRIVE提供了优越的预充氧(T2时PaO2较高,P < 0.001)。在呼吸暂停(T3-T4)期间,T组在没有机械通气的情况下维持了充足的氧合(SpO2 bb0 92%),但出现了轻度高碳酸血症,插管后继续机械通气有望改善。不良事件发生率无统计学意义(P = 1.000)。T组患者舒适度评分显著高于对照组(P < 0.001)。结论:在OSA高危患者中,与口咽气道辅助面罩通气相比,THRIVE可降低诱导过程中胃充气的发生率。THRIVE改善预充氧和患者舒适度。呼吸暂停期间维持氧合,插管后观察到短暂性PaCO2升高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书