Facemask oxygenation

  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    背景:关于在麻醉诱导中呼吸暂停期间胃容量与无通气的面罩氧合之间关系的研究很少。这项研究比较了成人腹腔镜手术中使用面罩通气和无通气的面罩氧合麻醉诱导时呼吸暂停期间胃体积的变化。
    方法:在此前瞻性中,随机化,双盲试验,将70名在全身麻醉下接受腹腔镜手术的成年人分为两组,在意识丧失后60秒接受有通气和无通气的面罩氧合。麻醉诱导前和气管插管后,用超声成像测量胃窦横截面积.在基线(T1)测试动脉血气,预充氧后(T2),意识丧失(T3)后,气管插管前后(分别为T4和T5)。
    结果:纳入60例患者(通气n=30;非通气n=30,排除10例)。通气组胃窦横截面积的中位数[IQR]变化明显高于非通气组(0.83[0.20to1.54]vs.0.10[-0.11至0.56]cm2,P=0.001)。在T4和T5时,通气组的PaO2明显高于非通气组(T4:391.83±61.53vs.336.23±74.99mmHg,P<0.01;T5:364.00±58.65vs.297.13±86.95mmHg,P<0.01),而非通气组的PaCO2明显升高(T4:46.57±5.78vs.37.27±6.10mmHg,P<0.01;T5:48.77±6.59vs.42.63±6.03mmHg,P<0.01),非通气组pH值明显降低(T4:7.35±0.029vs7.42±0.047,P<0.01;T5:7.34±0.033vs7.39±0.044,P<0.01)。在T4时,非通气组的HCO3-显着升高(25.79±2.36vs.23.98±2.18mmol1-1,P<0.01)。
    结论:在呼吸暂停期间,与正压通气相比,在不进行面罩氧合的患者中,胃容量增加较轻.
    背景:ChiCTR2100054193,2021年10月12日,标题:“腹腔镜手术中全身麻醉诱导期间正压和非正压通气对胃容量的影响:一项随机对照试验”。网站:https://www.chictr.ogr.cn.
    Studies focusing on the relationship between gastric volume and facemask oxygenation without ventilation during apnea in anesthesia induction are scarce. This study compared the change in gastric volume during apnea in anesthesia induction using facemask ventilation and facemask oxygenation without ventilation in adults undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
    In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 70 adults undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia were divided into two groups to receive facemask oxygenation with and without ventilation for 60 seconds after loss of consciousness. Before anesthesia induction and after endotracheal intubation, the gastric antral cross-sectional area was measured with ultrasound imaging. Arterial blood gases were tested at baseline (T1), after preoxygenation (T2), after loss of consciousness (T3), and before and after endotracheal intubation (T4 and T5, respectively).
    Sixty patients were included (ventilation n = 30; non ventilation n = 30, 10 patients were excluded). The median [IQR] change of gastric antral cross-sectional area in ventilation group was significantly higher than in non ventilation group (0.83 [0.20 to 1.54] vs. 0.10 [- 0.11 to 0.56] cm2, P = 0.001). At T4 and T5, the PaO2 in ventilation group was significantly higher than in non ventilation group (T4: 391.83 ± 61.53 vs. 336.23 ± 74.99 mmHg, P < 0.01; T5: 364.00 ± 58.65 vs. 297.13 ± 86.95 mmHg, P < 0.01), while the PaCO2 in non ventilation group was significantly higher (T4: 46.57 ± 5.78 vs. 37.27 ± 6.10 mmHg, P < 0.01; T5: 48.77 ± 6.59 vs. 42.63 ± 6.03 mmHg, P < 0.01) and the pH value in non ventilation group was significantly lower (T4: 7.35 ± 0.029 vs 7.42 ± 0.047, P < 0.01; T5: 7.34 ± 0.033 vs 7.39 ± 0.044, P < 0.01). At T4, the HCO3- in non ventilation group was significantly higher (25.79 ± 2.36 vs. 23.98 ± 2.18 mmol l- 1, P < 0.01).
    During apnoea, the increase in gastric volume was milder in patients undergoing facemask oxygenation without ventilation than with positive pressure ventilation.
    ChiCTR2100054193, 10/12/2021, Title: \"Effect of positive pressure and non-positive pressure ventilation on gastric volume during induction of general anesthesia in laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial\". Website: https://www.chictr.ogr.cn .
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    简介:在资源有限的中心,没有高流量的鼻插管,因此,我们评估使用麻醉机提供的15LO2流量进行预氧合是否可以延长插管前麻醉诱导的安全期,并为气道的安全提供更多时间.此外,我们比较了预充氧与标准6L与15LO2通过面罩或鼻套管。材料和方法:将患者分为四组。第一组患者在6L氧气下用鼻套管预充氧,II组患者在15L氧气下用鼻套管预充氧,III组患者在6L氧气下使用面罩进行预充氧,IV组患者在15L氧气下使用面罩进行预充氧。主要终点是去饱和和插管时间。次要终点是PaO2、PaCO2、Sat%和ETCO2。结果:15L预氧合组的去饱和和插管时间有统计学意义的延长。与I组相比,分配到II组的患者具有统计学上显着的较高PaO2和较低的ETCO2。在III组和IV组患者之间,仅在PaCO2方面存在差异,尽管这种影响是显着的,两组的数值均在正常范围内.结论:在资源有限的中心,使用麻醉机的最大可用氧气流量(15L/min)进行预充氧是有用的。这延长了固定气道的安全期。我们建议在临床环境中使用麻醉机的最大可用氧气流量。
    Introduction: In centers with limited resources, a high flow nasal cannula is not available, thus we assess if preoxygenation with 15L flow of O2 available from anesthesia machines can prolong the safety period of induction of anesthesia before intubation and provide more time for securing the airway. Moreover, we compared the preoxygenation with standard 6L vs. 15L O2 through a facemask or a nasal cannula. Material and methods: Patients were allocated into four groups. Group I patients were preoxygenated with a nasal cannula on 6L of oxygen, patients in group II were preoxygenated with a nasal cannula on 15L of oxygen, patients in group III were preoxygenated with a facemask on 6L of oxygen, and patients in group IV were preoxygenated with a facemask on 15L of oxygen. The primary endpoint was time to desaturation and intubation. The secondary endpoints were PaO2, PaCO2, Sat% and ETCO2. Results: The groups with 15L preoxygenation had a statistically significant prolonged time to desaturation and intubation. Patients allocated to group II have a statistically significant greater PaO2 and lesser ETCO2 compered with group I. However, between patients in group III and IV there is a difference only in PaCO2, and although this effect is significant, both groups have values within the normal range. Conclusion: In centers with limited resources, preoxygenation with the maximum available oxygen flow from anesthesia machines (15L/min) are useful. This prolongs the safety period for securing the airway. We suggest the use of the maximum available amount of oxygen flow from anesthesia machines in clinical settings.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号