Anaesthesia
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A randomised controlled trial comparing high-flow nasal oxygen with standard management for conscious sedation during bronchoscopy.
Traditional conscious sedation for endobronchial ultrasound procedures places patients at risk of desaturation, and high-flow nasal oxygen may reduce the risk. We designed a parallel-group randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal oxygen at a flow rate of 30-70 l.min-1 via nasal cannulae, compared with standard oxygen therapy at 10 l.min-1 via a bite block in adults planned for conscious sedation for endobronchial ultrasound. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing desaturation (defined as SpO2 < 90%). ⋯ Oxygen saturation after pre-oxygenation and the lowest oxygen saturation during procedure were significantly higher in the high-flow nasal oxygen group compared with the standard oxygenation group; median (IQR [range] 100 (99-100 [93-100]) vs. 98 (97-99 [94-100]), p = 0.0001 and 97.5 (94-99 [77-100]) vs. 92 (88-95 [79-98]), p < 0.001, respectively. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. Although high-flow nasal oxygen may prevent desaturation due to some causes, it does not protect against hypoxaemia in all circumstances.
-
While haemodynamic variability interferes with the assumption of constant flow underlying thermodilution cardiac output calculation, variability in (peripheral) arterial vascular physiology may affect pulse contour cardiac output methods. We compared non-invasive finger arterial pressure-derived continuous cardiac output measurements (Nexfin® ) with cardiac output measured using thermodilution during cardiothoracic surgery and determined the impact of cardiovascular variability on either method. We compared cardiac output derived from non-invasive finger arterial pressure with cardiac output measured by thermodilution at four grades (A-D) of cardiovascular variability. ⋯ Variability during cardiothoracic surgery affected the comparison between thermodilution and non-invasive finger arterial pressure-derived cardiac output. When the main sources of variability were included, percentage errors were large. Future cardiac output methodology comparison studies should report haemodynamic variability.