Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Bilevel positive airway pressure reduces anaesthesiologist workload and turnover time in electroconvulsive therapy: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing clinical demand for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) highlights specific challenges in anaesthetic management, particularly the reliance on continuous mask ventilation. Bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) provides automated, hands-free ventilatory support and may enhance efficiency. This study aims to compare the impact of BPAP versus face mask ventilation on procedural turnover time during ECT.
methodsIn this single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 110 patients were enrolled with a history of at least two prior ECT sessions. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either BPAP or face mask ventilation. The primary outcome was the turnover time, defined as the duration from anaesthesia induction to entry into the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the total ECT duration, breathing and consciousness recovery times, incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 94% for > 5 s), adverse events and operator-centered measures, including upper limb discomfort, anxiety and satisfaction scores.
resultsThe BPAP group demonstrated a significantly shorter median turnover time ccompared to the face mask group (332 [286-415] s vs. 426 [348-472] s; median difference 84 s, 95% CI 44-119, P < 0.001). No significant differences in the total ECT duration, breathing recovery time, consciousness recovery time, or incidence of hypoxemia. The incidence of anaesthesiologist-reported upper limb discomfort was lower in the BPAP group (P < 0.001), and operator satisfaction scores were higher (P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn patients with prior ECT experience, BPAP safely reduced procedural turnover time and significantly decreased the physical burden on anaesthesiologists compared to face mask ventilation. BPAP represents a viable strategy to improve workflow efficiency and operator comfort in high-volume ECT settings.
trial registrationChiCTR2100051837, the Chinese Clinical Trial, 20-211-006. Research registration number: ChiCTR2100051837, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. IRB number: [2021] 02-203-01, the Research Ethics Committee of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
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.