Trial reportPloS one2026
The routine use of nasopharyngeal airway in the setting of monitored anesthesia care during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A multi-center single blinded randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMonitored anesthesia care (MAC) is commonly used for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, allowing patients to breathe spontaneously while sedated. Despite its benefits, MAC is associated with respiratory adverse events, such as desaturation or the need for interventions. Limited studies have examined the effectiveness of nasopharyngeal airways (NPA) in reducing airway maneuvers and improving respiratory stability during MAC. The study evaluates the efficacy and safety of NPA in reducing the occurrence of at least one airway intervention/desaturation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy under MAC.
methodsThis multi-center, single-blinded randomized controlled trial involved patients undergoing GI endoscopy under MAC. A total of 329 patients were randomly assigned to either the NPA or control group. Primary outcomes included a composite primary outcome: occurrence of at least one airway intervention/desaturation. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, satisfaction scores of patients and healthcare providers, and the joint effects of NPA use and OSA risk on the occurrence of at least one airway intervention or desaturation.
resultsThe NPA group showed significantly lower incidence of occurrence of at least one airway intervention/desaturation compared to controls (18.5% vs. 40.1%, P < 0.001). NPA significantly reduced the occurrence of at least one airway intervention/desaturation in both low and intermediate/high risk OSA groups. The reduction was stronger in low OSA risk group (OR=0.23, 95%CI [0.11-0.49]) versus intermediate/high OSA risk group (OR=0.45, 95%CI [0.21-0.95]. Health care provider satisfaction was significantly higher in the NPA group (p < 0.001). Mild, self-resolving epistaxis occurred in 3.1% of NPA patients.
conclusionsNPA use reduces airway interventions and enhances satisfaction among anesthesiologists and gastroenterologists during GI endoscopy under MAC. Routine utilization of NPAs in this context may be considered.
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.