Comparison of a Nasal Mask and Traditional Nasal Cannula During Intravenous Anesthesia for Gastroscopy Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Dong Xu Chen, Hui Yang, Xi Ping Wu, Wang Niu, Lin Ding, Huo Lin Zeng, Qian Li, Dong Xu Chen, Hui Yang, Xi Ping Wu, Wang Niu, Lin Ding, Huo Lin Zeng, Qian Li

Abstract

Background: Hypoxemia can occur during gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate whether oxygenation using a nasal mask can reduce the incidence of hypoxemia during gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia compared with a traditional nasal cannula.

Methods: A total of 574 patients scheduled for gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either a nasal mask or a traditional nasal cannula for oxygenation. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypoxemia, duration of hypoxemia, minimum oxygen saturation, the proportion of emergency airway management, length of procedure, recovery time, and the satisfaction of the anesthetist and gastroenterologists as well as other adverse events (including cough, hiccups, nausea and vomiting, reflux, aspiration, and laryngospasm).

Results: A total of 565 patients were included in the analysis: 282 patients in the nasal cannula group and 283 patients in the nasal mask group. The incidence of hypoxemia was lower in the nasal mask group (18.0%) than in the nasal cannula group (27.7%; relative risk [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.89; P = .006), and the hypoxemia lasted a median of 18.0 seconds (interquartile range, 10.0-38.8) in the nasal mask group and 32.5 seconds (20.0-53.5) in the nasal cannula group (median difference -14.50; 95% CI, -22.82 to -1.34; P = .047). The proportion of patients requiring emergency airway management was significantly lower in the nasal mask group (8.8%) than in the nasal cannula group (19.1%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.73; P < .001). No difference was found in the overall incidence of other adverse events between the 2 groups (nasal mask 20.8%; nasal cannula 17.0%; RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87-1.73; P = .25). Satisfaction was higher with the nasal mask than with the nasal cannula from the perspective of anesthetists (96.1% for nasal mask versus 84.4% for nasal cannula; RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.20; P < .001) and gastroenterologists (95.4% for mask versus 81.9% for cannula; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24; P < .001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe hypoxemia, minimum oxygen saturation, length of procedure, or recovery time between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: Nasal mask oxygenation reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia for gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Anesthesia Research Society.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
A representative image of the nasal mask and nasal cannula. A, Nasal mask (Chongren Medical Instruments). B, Nasal cannula of 2.5 m (Hongxiang Maoyike).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Flowchart of the hypoxemia management protocol applied in this study. Spo2 indicates pulse oxygen saturation.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
CONSORT diagram of the participant selection protocol. CONSORT indicates Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.

References

    1. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, et al. . Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:254.e11–272.e11.
    1. Inadomi JM, Gunnarsson CL, Rizzo JA, Fang H. Projected increased growth rate of anesthesia professional-delivered sedation for colonoscopy and EGD in the United States: 2009 to 2015. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:580–586.
    1. Cai G, Huang Z, Zou T, et al. . Clinical application of a novel endoscopic mask: a randomized controlled trial in aged patients undergoing painless gastroscopy. Int J Med Sci. 2017;14:167–172.
    1. Qadeer MA, Lopez AR, Dumot JA, Vargo JJ. Hypoxemia during moderate sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: causes and associations. Digestion. 2011;84:37–45.
    1. Xiao Q, Yang Y, Zhou Y, et al. . Comparison of nasopharyngeal airway device and nasal oxygen tube in obese patients undergoing intravenous anesthesia for gastroscopy: a prospective and randomized study. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:2641257.
    1. King AB, Alvis BD, Hester D, Taylor S, Higgins M. Randomized trial of a novel double lumen nasopharyngeal catheter versus traditional nasal cannula during total intravenous anesthesia for gastrointestinal procedures. J Clin Anesth. 2017;38:52–56.
    1. Mazzeffi MA, Petrick KM, Magder L, et al. . High-flow nasal cannula oxygen in patients having anesthesia for advanced esophagogastroduodenoscopy: HIFLOW-ENDO, a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 2021;132:743–751.
    1. Oto J, Li Q, Kimball WR, et al. . Continuous positive airway pressure and ventilation are more effective with a nasal mask than a full face mask in unconscious subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2013;17:R300.
    1. Lin Y, Zhang X, Li L, et al. . High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and hypoxia during gastroscopy with propofol sedation: a randomized multicenter clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90:591–601.
    1. Riphaus A, Geist C, Schrader K, Martchenko K, Wehrmann T. Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:1078–1085.
    1. Kapoor MC, Rana S, Singh AK, Vishal V, Sikdar I. Nasal mask ventilation is better than face mask ventilation in edentulous patients. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2016;32:314–318.
    1. Eberl S, Koers L, van Hooft JE, et al. . Sedation with propofol during ERCP: is the combination with esketamine more effective and safer than with alfentanil? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:472.
    1. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083–3107.
    1. Nay MA, Fromont L, Eugene A, et al. . High-flow nasal oxygenation or standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation in patients at risk of hypoxaemia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (ODEPHI trial). Br J Anaesth. 2021;127:133–142.
    1. Wani S, Azar R, Hovis CE, et al. . Obesity as a risk factor for sedation-related complications during propofol-mediated sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:1238–1247.
    1. Haines DJ, Bibbey D, Green JR. Does nasal oxygen reduce the cardiorespiratory problems experienced by elderly patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Gut. 1992;33:973–975.
    1. Akhtar S. Pharmacological considerations in the elderly. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2018;31:11–18.
    1. Kohler M, Mcnicholas WT, Somers VK, Lavie L. Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2015;1:15015.
    1. Zhou X, Li BX, Chen LM, et al. . Etomidate plus propofol versus propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy: a randomized prospective clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5108–5116.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi