Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Comparison of periglottic oxygen fraction, tracheal oxygen fraction and safe apnea time under different apneic oxygenation techniques: a randomised non-inferiority controlled study.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApneic oxygenation prolongs safe apnea time and reduces hypoxemia risk during airway management. The primary objective of this study was to compare the safe apnea time among various techniques, while the secondary objective was to evaluate intergroup differences in periglottic and tracheal oxygen fractions (FgO₂ and FtO₂).
methodsThis randomized, non-inferiority trial enrolled 125 participants, assigned to five groups: modified nasopharyngeal airway with 10 L/min oxygen (Naso group), nasal cannula oxygenation at 2 L/min (L2 group), 5 L/min (L5 group), and 10 L/min (L10 group), and a control group without supplemental oxygen (L0 group).
resultsThe success rate in the L10 group was lower than that in the Naso group (82.6% vs. 95.7%; risk difference, -13.0%; 95%CI: -27.8% to 1.7%), and non-inferiority was not established, but had similar safe apnea times (15 [15 to 15] min vs 15 [15 to 15] min, P = 0.138).The L10 group demonstrated superior performance compared to the L0, L2, and L5 groups terms of achieving a safe apnea time of 15 min (82.6% vs 0、8.7% and 43.5%,respectively; P < 0.001). At all measured time points,FgO
conclusionThe nasal cannula at 10 L/min, along with the modified nasopharyngeal airway, was associated with longer safe apnea times and relatively higher FgO₂ and FtO₂ levels. Higher oxygen flow rates were associated with increased FgO₂, FtO₂, and longer safe apnea duration.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Hospital of Fudan University (2022-197) on January 9, 2023. The study was registered on ChiCTR (ChiCTR2300067642) on January 16, 2023.
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.