高流量鼻插管与常规氧疗在高危患者支气管镜检查中的比较:一项多中心随机对照试验。

Hao Qin, Jie Li, Jun Wang, Yu-Guang Yang, Guo-Qiang Jing, Rong-Zhang Chen, Wei Tan, Yong-Qi Zhang, Tian Li, Jun-Ci Yang, Bing Dai, Qin Wang, Yang Jiao, Yang Xia, Hai-Dong Huang, Qiang Li, Yu-Chao Dong, Chong Bai, Wei Zhang
{"title":"高流量鼻插管与常规氧疗在高危患者支气管镜检查中的比较:一项多中心随机对照试验。","authors":"Hao Qin, Jie Li, Jun Wang, Yu-Guang Yang, Guo-Qiang Jing, Rong-Zhang Chen, Wei Tan, Yong-Qi Zhang, Tian Li, Jun-Ci Yang, Bing Dai, Qin Wang, Yang Jiao, Yang Xia, Hai-Dong Huang, Qiang Li, Yu-Chao Dong, Chong Bai, Wei Zhang","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202410-1109OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Despite the increasing use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy during endoscopy examination, its impact on high-risk patients remains uncertain. <b>Objectives:</b> We aimed to compare HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) during nasal bronchoscopy in patients at high risk for desaturation (morbid obesity, narrow trachea, or baseline hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia). <b>Methods:</b> In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for bronchoscopy and presenting with any high-risk factors were randomly assigned to receive HFNC or COT after providing written consent. Vital signs, pulse oximetry (Sp<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub>), and transcutaneous carbon dioxide were continuously monitored. The occurrence of desaturation (Sp<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub> ⩽ 90% lasted >10 s), frequency of examination interruption, and treatment escalation were compared between groups. <b>Results:</b> Of 148 initially enrolled patients, 6 withdrew, leaving 72 and 70 in the HFNC and COT groups, respectively. Most of the patients had airway stenosis. HFNC significantly reduced desaturation occurrence during bronchoscopy (34.7% vs. 61.4%; <i>P</i> = 0.016), with fewer instances of examination interruption (26.4% vs. 58.6%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and less frequent treatment escalation (30.6% vs. 57.1%; <i>P</i> = 0.001). During the examination, the lowest Sp<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub> was higher with HFNC (94% [interquartile range, 87-98%] vs. 87.5% [79-93%]; <i>P</i> = 0.001), whereas the highest transcutaneous carbon dioxide was lower (64.6 [56.8-70.1] vs. 68.3 [62.3-77.0] mm Hg; <i>P</i> = 0.04). No significant differences were observed regarding the time to the first desaturation, bronchoscopy withdrawal, durations of desaturation and bronchoscopy examination, or occurrence of other adverse events between groups. <b>Conclusions:</b> In a high-risk population with predominant airway stenosis, HFNC significantly reduced desaturation occurrence, examination interruption, and treatment escalation during nasal bronchoscopy examination in high risk patients. Clinical trial registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100055038).</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"1018-1026"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Conventional Oxygen Therapy for High Risk Patients During Bronchoscopy Examination: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Hao Qin, Jie Li, Jun Wang, Yu-Guang Yang, Guo-Qiang Jing, Rong-Zhang Chen, Wei Tan, Yong-Qi Zhang, Tian Li, Jun-Ci Yang, Bing Dai, Qin Wang, Yang Jiao, Yang Xia, Hai-Dong Huang, Qiang Li, Yu-Chao Dong, Chong Bai, Wei Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202410-1109OC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Despite the increasing use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy during endoscopy examination, its impact on high-risk patients remains uncertain. <b>Objectives:</b> We aimed to compare HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) during nasal bronchoscopy in patients at high risk for desaturation (morbid obesity, narrow trachea, or baseline hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia). <b>Methods:</b> In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for bronchoscopy and presenting with any high-risk factors were randomly assigned to receive HFNC or COT after providing written consent. Vital signs, pulse oximetry (Sp<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub>), and transcutaneous carbon dioxide were continuously monitored. The occurrence of desaturation (Sp<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub> ⩽ 90% lasted >10 s), frequency of examination interruption, and treatment escalation were compared between groups. <b>Results:</b> Of 148 initially enrolled patients, 6 withdrew, leaving 72 and 70 in the HFNC and COT groups, respectively. Most of the patients had airway stenosis. HFNC significantly reduced desaturation occurrence during bronchoscopy (34.7% vs. 61.4%; <i>P</i> = 0.016), with fewer instances of examination interruption (26.4% vs. 58.6%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and less frequent treatment escalation (30.6% vs. 57.1%; <i>P</i> = 0.001). During the examination, the lowest Sp<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub> was higher with HFNC (94% [interquartile range, 87-98%] vs. 87.5% [79-93%]; <i>P</i> = 0.001), whereas the highest transcutaneous carbon dioxide was lower (64.6 [56.8-70.1] vs. 68.3 [62.3-77.0] mm Hg; <i>P</i> = 0.04). No significant differences were observed regarding the time to the first desaturation, bronchoscopy withdrawal, durations of desaturation and bronchoscopy examination, or occurrence of other adverse events between groups. <b>Conclusions:</b> In a high-risk population with predominant airway stenosis, HFNC significantly reduced desaturation occurrence, examination interruption, and treatment escalation during nasal bronchoscopy examination in high risk patients. Clinical trial registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100055038).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the American Thoracic Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1018-1026\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the American Thoracic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202410-1109OC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202410-1109OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:尽管在内镜检查中越来越多地使用高流量鼻插管(HFNC)氧疗,但其对高危患者的影响仍不确定。目的:我们的目的是比较HFNC和常规氧疗(COT)在鼻支气管镜检查中对失饱和高危患者(病态肥胖、气管狭窄或基线低氧血症和/或高碳酸血症)。测量:在这项多中心随机对照试验(RCT)中,计划进行支气管镜检查且存在任何高危因素的患者在提供书面同意后随机分配接受HFNC或COT。连续监测生命体征、脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO2)和经皮二氧化碳(PtCO2)。比较两组间去饱和发生率(SpO2≤90%)、检查中断频率及治疗升级情况。结果:148名最初纳入的患者中,6名退出,HFNC组和COT组分别留下72名和70名。多数患者存在气道狭窄。HFNC显著降低了支气管镜检查期间的去饱和发生率(34.7比61.4%,p=0.016),检查中断的病例较少(26.4比58.6%,p2较高(94[IQR, 87-98]比87.5[79-93]%,p=0.001),而最高PtCO2较低(64.6[56.8-70.1]比68.3[62.3-77.0]mmHg, p=0.04)。在第一次去饱和时间、支气管镜停检时间、去饱和时间和支气管镜检查时间以及其他不良事件的发生方面,两组间无显著差异。结论:在以气道狭窄为主的高危人群中,HFNC可显著减少高危患者鼻支气管镜检查时去饱和的发生、检查中断和治疗升级。临床试验注册网站:www.ChiCTR.org.cn, ID: ChiCTR2100055038。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Conventional Oxygen Therapy for High Risk Patients During Bronchoscopy Examination: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rationale: Despite the increasing use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy during endoscopy examination, its impact on high-risk patients remains uncertain. Objectives: We aimed to compare HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) during nasal bronchoscopy in patients at high risk for desaturation (morbid obesity, narrow trachea, or baseline hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia). Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for bronchoscopy and presenting with any high-risk factors were randomly assigned to receive HFNC or COT after providing written consent. Vital signs, pulse oximetry (SpO2), and transcutaneous carbon dioxide were continuously monitored. The occurrence of desaturation (SpO2 ⩽ 90% lasted >10 s), frequency of examination interruption, and treatment escalation were compared between groups. Results: Of 148 initially enrolled patients, 6 withdrew, leaving 72 and 70 in the HFNC and COT groups, respectively. Most of the patients had airway stenosis. HFNC significantly reduced desaturation occurrence during bronchoscopy (34.7% vs. 61.4%; P = 0.016), with fewer instances of examination interruption (26.4% vs. 58.6%; P < 0.001) and less frequent treatment escalation (30.6% vs. 57.1%; P = 0.001). During the examination, the lowest SpO2 was higher with HFNC (94% [interquartile range, 87-98%] vs. 87.5% [79-93%]; P = 0.001), whereas the highest transcutaneous carbon dioxide was lower (64.6 [56.8-70.1] vs. 68.3 [62.3-77.0] mm Hg; P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed regarding the time to the first desaturation, bronchoscopy withdrawal, durations of desaturation and bronchoscopy examination, or occurrence of other adverse events between groups. Conclusions: In a high-risk population with predominant airway stenosis, HFNC significantly reduced desaturation occurrence, examination interruption, and treatment escalation during nasal bronchoscopy examination in high risk patients. Clinical trial registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100055038).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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