TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of nasopharyngeal oxygen, nasal prongs and facemask oxygen therapy devices in adult patients
T2 - A randomised crossover trial
AU - Eastwood, G. M.
AU - O'Connell, B.
AU - Gardner, A.
AU - Considine, J.
PY - 2008/9/1
Y1 - 2008/9/1
N2 - Nasopharyngeal oxygen (NPO) therapy may overcome some of the difficulties associated with nasal prongs and facemask oxygen delivery devices. In response to a lack of published studies of NPO therapy in adults, we conducted a prospective randomised crossover trial to compare the effectiveness of NPO, nasal prongs (NP) and facemasks (FM) when used in an adult population (n=37) from the intensive care unit and general hospital wards. We measured oxygen saturation (SpO2) using pulse oximetry, oxygen flow (litres per minute), respiration rate (per minute) and comfort using a horizontal visual analogue scale. All three devices were effective in maintaining a SpO 2 of ≥95% (NP 97.0±1.9, NPO 97.7±1.7, FM 98.8±1.3%). NPO therapy consumed less oxygen than NP and FM therapy (NP 2.6±1.0, NPO 2.2±0.9, FM 6.1±0.4 l/min, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in patients' respiratory rates (NP 19.9±3.2, NPO 19.9±3.0, FM 19.8±3.1 per minute, P=0.491). In terms of comfort, patients rated NP higher than NPO and FM using a horizontal visual analogue scale (100 mm=most comfortable) (NP 65.5±14.3, NPO 62.8±19.4, FM 49.4±21.4 mm, P <0.001). We conclude that for adult patients, nasal prongs and nasopharyngeal oxygen therapy consume less oxygen and provide greater comfort than facemasks while still maintaining SpO2 ≥95%.
AB - Nasopharyngeal oxygen (NPO) therapy may overcome some of the difficulties associated with nasal prongs and facemask oxygen delivery devices. In response to a lack of published studies of NPO therapy in adults, we conducted a prospective randomised crossover trial to compare the effectiveness of NPO, nasal prongs (NP) and facemasks (FM) when used in an adult population (n=37) from the intensive care unit and general hospital wards. We measured oxygen saturation (SpO2) using pulse oximetry, oxygen flow (litres per minute), respiration rate (per minute) and comfort using a horizontal visual analogue scale. All three devices were effective in maintaining a SpO 2 of ≥95% (NP 97.0±1.9, NPO 97.7±1.7, FM 98.8±1.3%). NPO therapy consumed less oxygen than NP and FM therapy (NP 2.6±1.0, NPO 2.2±0.9, FM 6.1±0.4 l/min, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in patients' respiratory rates (NP 19.9±3.2, NPO 19.9±3.0, FM 19.8±3.1 per minute, P=0.491). In terms of comfort, patients rated NP higher than NPO and FM using a horizontal visual analogue scale (100 mm=most comfortable) (NP 65.5±14.3, NPO 62.8±19.4, FM 49.4±21.4 mm, P <0.001). We conclude that for adult patients, nasal prongs and nasopharyngeal oxygen therapy consume less oxygen and provide greater comfort than facemasks while still maintaining SpO2 ≥95%.
KW - Facemask oxygen
KW - Nasal prongs
KW - Nasopharyngeal oxygen
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=51849105626&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 18853588
AN - SCOPUS:51849105626
SN - 0310-057X
VL - 36
SP - 691
EP - 694
JO - Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
JF - Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
IS - 5
ER -