Preoxygenation With Flush Rate Oxygen: Comparing the Nonrebreather Mask With the Bag-Valve Mask - 21/02/18
, Lauren R. Klein, MD a, Krista Carlson, MS c, Justin Harrington, MD a, Robert F. Reardon, MD a, Matthew E. Prekker, MD a, bAbstract |
Study objective |
Nonrebreather masks and bag-valve masks are used for preoxygenation before emergency intubation. Flush rate oxygen delivered with a nonrebreather mask is noninferior to bag-valve mask oxygen at 15 L/min. We seek to compare the nonrebreather mask with flush rate oxygen to a bag-valve mask with flush rate oxygen (with and without inspiratory assistance) and determine whether the efficacy of bag-valve mask with flush rate oxygen is compromised by a simulated mask leak.
Methods |
We conducted 2 prospective studies in healthy, adult volunteers. All devices in both studies used flush rate oxygen, achieved by rotating the flowmeter dial counterclockwise until it could not be rotated farther, which delivered oxygen at 40 to 60 L/min. Study 1 compared preoxygenation with nonrebreather mask to bag-valve mask (modified with a one-way exhalation port) with and without a simulated mask leak. Study 2 compared nonrebreather mask to bag-valve mask with inspiratory assistance. The primary outcome was FeO2. For each comparison, we prespecified a noninferiority margin of FeO2 for the nonrebreather mask (compared with the bag-valve mask, bag-valve mask with mask leak, and bag-valve mask with assistance) of 10%.
Results |
Thirty subjects were enrolled in study 1 and 27 subjects were enrolled in study 2. For study 1, mean FeO2 values for nonrebreather mask, bag-valve mask, and bag-valve mask with leak were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78% to 83%), 76% (95% CI 71% to 81%), and 30% (95% CI 26% to 35%), respectively. FeO2 for the nonrebreather mask was noninferior to the bag-valve mask at flush rate (difference 5%; 95% CI –1% to 10%). FeO2 was higher for the nonrebreather mask compared with the bag-valve mask with a simulated mask leak (difference 51%; 95% CI 46% to 55%). For study 2, mean FeO2 values for nonrebreather mask and bag-valve mask with assistance were 83% (95% CI 80% to 86%) and 77% (95% CI 73% to 80%), respectively. FeO2 for the nonrebreather mask was noninferior to the bag-valve mask with assistance at flush rate (difference 6%; 95% CI 3% to 10%).
Conclusion |
With flush rate oxygen, the nonrebreather mask is noninferior to the bag-valve mask, with and without inspiratory assistance. Bag-valve mask performed poorly with a mask leak, even with flush rate oxygen. Flush rate oxygen with a nonrebreather mask is a reasonable default preoxygenation method in spontaneously breathing patients with no underlying respiratory pathology.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Please see page 382 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
| Supervising editors: Jestin N. Carlson, MD, MS; Henry E. Wang, MD, MS |
|
| Author contributions: BED, LRK, RFR, and MEP conceived and designed the study. BED trained KC and JH, who enrolled patients and performed data collection. BED performed the data analysis and drafted the initial article. All authors contributed substantially to article revision. BED takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
| All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
| Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. |
|
| Trial registration numbers: NCT02798302 (study 1) and NCT02841592 (study 2) |
|
| Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide 8GMH6GZ to Annals on this particular article. |
|
| A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 71 - N° 3
P. 381-386 - mars 2018 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- How Effective Is a Regional Nerve Block for Treating Pain Associated With Hip Fractures?
- Michael Gottlieb, Nicholas Chien, Thomas Seagraves
- The Effect of Successful Intubation on Patient Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Taipei
- Wen-Chu Chiang, Ming-Ju Hsieh, Hsin-Lan Chu, Albert Y. Chen, Shin-Yi Wen, Wen-Shuo Yang, Yu-Chun Chien, Yao-Cheng Wang, Bin-Chou Lee, Huei-Chih Wang, Edward Pei-Chuan Huang, Chih-Wei Yang, Jen-Tang Sun, Kah-Meng Chong, Hao-Yang Lin, Shu-Hsien Hsu, Shey-Ying Chen, Matthew Huei-Ming Ma
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?