ArticleMedical gas research
A special oropharyngeal oxygenation device to facilitate apneic oxygenation in comparison to high flow oxygenation devices.
Article in Medical gas research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of apneic oxygenation during intubation using a prototype of an oxygenation laryngoscope - a technical simulation.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Article
- Identification of the Optimal Position of a Nasal Oxygen Cannula for Apneic Oxygenation: A Technical Simulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on arterial blood pressure in mechanically ventilated trauma patients in the field: a retrospective cohort study.Medical gas researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oxygen application and apneic oxygenation may reduce the risk of hypoxemia due to apnea during awake fiberoptic intubation or failed endotracheal intubation. High flow devices are recommended, but their effect compared to moderate deep oropharyngeal oxygen application is unknown. Designed as an experimental manikin trial, we made a comparison between oxygen application via nasal prongs at 10 L/min (control group), applying oxygen via oropharyngeal oxygenation device (at 10 L/min), oxygen application via high flow nasal oxygen with 20 L/min and 90% oxygen (20 L/90% group), oxygen application via high flow nasal oxygen with 60 L/min and 45% oxygen (60 L/45% group), and oxygen application via sealed face mask with a special adapter to allow for fiberoptic entering of the airway. We preoxygenated the lung of a manikin and measured the decrease in oxygen level during the following 20 minutes for each way of oxygen application. Oxygen levels fell from 97 ± 1% at baseline to 75 ± 1% in control group, and to 86 ± 1% in oropharyngeal oxygenation device group. In the high flow nasal oxygen group, oxygen level dropped to 72 ± 1% in the 20 L/90% group and to 44 ± 1% in the 60 L/45% group. Oxygen level remained at 98 ± 0% in the face mask group. In conclusion, in this manikin simulation study of apneic oxygenation, oxygen insufflation using a sealed face mask kept oxygen levels in the test lung at 98% over 20 minutes, oral oxygenation device led to oxygen levels at 86%, whereas all other methods resulted in the decrease of oxygen levels below 75%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.