Assessment of the application of double-modified nasopharyngeal airways versus the use of low-flow nasal cannula during pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized, noninferiority, controlled trial

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
M. Hussein, A. Amer, M. Maarouf
{"title":"Assessment of the application of double-modified nasopharyngeal airways versus the use of low-flow nasal cannula during pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized, noninferiority, controlled trial","authors":"M. Hussein, A. Amer, M. Maarouf","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_113_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Pediatric upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is commonly performed under deep sedation, which is frequently associated with respiratory complications. The study compared the respiratory benefits of applying bilateral modified nasopharyngeal airways (NPAs) to conventional low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC).\n \n \n \n Fifty patients scheduled for an upper GI endoscopy under deep sedation, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly divided into bilateral NPA group and the LFNC group. Fentanyl and propofol were administered to both groups to maintain deep sedation. After the application of NPA or LFNC, the hypoxic incidents (oxygen saturation [SpO2] <90%) and airway interventions during the procedure were noted and recorded. Other outcomes such as nasopharyngeal injuries, gastroenterologist satisfaction, the incidence of hypotension or bradycardia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were also compared.\n \n \n \n No significant differences were noted in the demographic data. The incidence of hypoxemia was 16% (n = 4) in the NPA group versus 36% (n = 9) in the LFNC group (P = 0.634). Airway intervention was lower in the NPA group compared to the LFNC group, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.539). No significant differences were noted in the incidence of nasopharyngeal injuries, postoperative nausea and vomiting, bradycardia, and hypotension. The NPA group showed higher gastroenterologist’s satisfaction (P = 0.003).\n \n \n \n Double-modified NPA in pediatric endoscopy was noninferior to the standard LFNC for the incidence of hypoxemia and airway intervention rate, with greater gastroenterologist satisfaction.\n","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_113_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pediatric upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is commonly performed under deep sedation, which is frequently associated with respiratory complications. The study compared the respiratory benefits of applying bilateral modified nasopharyngeal airways (NPAs) to conventional low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC). Fifty patients scheduled for an upper GI endoscopy under deep sedation, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly divided into bilateral NPA group and the LFNC group. Fentanyl and propofol were administered to both groups to maintain deep sedation. After the application of NPA or LFNC, the hypoxic incidents (oxygen saturation [SpO2] <90%) and airway interventions during the procedure were noted and recorded. Other outcomes such as nasopharyngeal injuries, gastroenterologist satisfaction, the incidence of hypotension or bradycardia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were also compared. No significant differences were noted in the demographic data. The incidence of hypoxemia was 16% (n = 4) in the NPA group versus 36% (n = 9) in the LFNC group (P = 0.634). Airway intervention was lower in the NPA group compared to the LFNC group, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.539). No significant differences were noted in the incidence of nasopharyngeal injuries, postoperative nausea and vomiting, bradycardia, and hypotension. The NPA group showed higher gastroenterologist’s satisfaction (P = 0.003). Double-modified NPA in pediatric endoscopy was noninferior to the standard LFNC for the incidence of hypoxemia and airway intervention rate, with greater gastroenterologist satisfaction.
评估双改良鼻咽气道与低流量鼻插管在儿科上消化道内窥镜检查中的应用:一项前瞻性、随机、非劣效性对照试验
小儿上消化道(GI)内窥镜检查通常在深度镇静下进行,这通常与呼吸系统并发症有关。本研究比较了应用双侧改良鼻咽气道(NPAs)与常规低流量鼻插管(LFNC)的呼吸益处。50例患者计划在深度镇静下进行上消化道内窥镜检查,他们的美国麻醉医师协会的身体状态为I/II。患者随机分为双侧NPA组和LFNC组。两组均给予芬太尼和异丙酚维持深度镇静。应用NPA或LFNC后,记录手术过程中的缺氧事件(血氧饱和度[SpO2] <90%)和气道干预。其他结果,如鼻咽损伤、胃肠科医生满意度、低血压或心动过缓的发生率以及术后恶心和呕吐也进行了比较。人口统计数据没有显著差异。NPA组低氧血症发生率为16% (n = 4), LFNC组为36% (n = 9) (P = 0.634)。NPA组气道干预低于LFNC组,但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.539)。鼻咽部损伤、术后恶心呕吐、心动过缓和低血压的发生率无显著差异。NPA组胃肠科医师满意度较高(P = 0.003)。小儿内镜双改良NPA在低氧血症发生率和气道干预率方面不低于标准LFNC,胃肠科医师满意度更高。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The JOACP publishes original peer-reviewed research and clinical work in all branches of anaesthesiology, pain, critical care and perioperative medicine including the application to basic sciences. In addition, the journal publishes review articles, special articles, brief communications/reports, case reports, and reports of new equipment, letters to editor, book reviews and obituaries. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信