Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026
Preoxygenation with high-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional techniques using anatomical face mask in patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy: A randomised comparative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kapoor Ruchi, Kumar Yashraj K, Rautela Rajesh S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Preoxygenation is crucial during rapid sequence induction, especially in peritonitis patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy who are prone to hypoxaemia. This study compares high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) versus facemask for preoxygenation efficacy, laryngoscopy duration, desaturation, arterial blood gases, and patient comfort.
METHODS: Sixty consenting, haemodynamically stable patients aged ≥15 years, scheduled for exploratory laparotomy, were randomised into two equal groups receiving preoxygenation using either HFNO at 50 L/min for 5 min or standard anatomical facemask (SMO) at 10 L/min. Arterial blood gas samples were obtained preoperatively, 5 min after preoxygenation, and 1 min following intubation. The primary outcome was partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO₂) after 5 min of preoxygenation. Secondary outcomes included partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), laryngoscopy duration, desaturation incidence, patient comfort, and haemodynamic parameters. Statistical analysis was performed using independent t-test, Wilcoxon test, and Chi-square test. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: PaO2 5 min after preoxygenation was higher in both groups, the mean (standard deviation) increase, greater in HFNO [376.86 (86.57)] than in SMO group [263.68 (77.39)]. This rise was higher even 1 min after intubation in HFNO group [312.89 (82.87)] versus SMO [215.61 (66.95)]. HFNO group also showed a less incidence of desaturation and a decrease in PaCO2 [31.73 (5.46)] than in SMO group [35.72 (8.11)].
CONCLUSION: Preoxygenation for 5 min by HFNO is superior to facemask as there is an increase in PaO2, decreased PaCO2, less desaturation, and more comfort to patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy.
METHODS: Sixty consenting, haemodynamically stable patients aged ≥15 years, scheduled for exploratory laparotomy, were randomised into two equal groups receiving preoxygenation using either HFNO at 50 L/min for 5 min or standard anatomical facemask (SMO) at 10 L/min. Arterial blood gas samples were obtained preoperatively, 5 min after preoxygenation, and 1 min following intubation. The primary outcome was partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO₂) after 5 min of preoxygenation. Secondary outcomes included partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), laryngoscopy duration, desaturation incidence, patient comfort, and haemodynamic parameters. Statistical analysis was performed using independent t-test, Wilcoxon test, and Chi-square test. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: PaO2 5 min after preoxygenation was higher in both groups, the mean (standard deviation) increase, greater in HFNO [376.86 (86.57)] than in SMO group [263.68 (77.39)]. This rise was higher even 1 min after intubation in HFNO group [312.89 (82.87)] versus SMO [215.61 (66.95)]. HFNO group also showed a less incidence of desaturation and a decrease in PaCO2 [31.73 (5.46)] than in SMO group [35.72 (8.11)].
CONCLUSION: Preoxygenation for 5 min by HFNO is superior to facemask as there is an increase in PaO2, decreased PaCO2, less desaturation, and more comfort to patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy.