JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

[The practicability, patient comfort and efficiency of the pre-oxygenation device NasOral]

B Füllekrug, R Beyer, H Reissmann, W Pothmann
Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin, Schmerztherapie: AINS 2000, 35 (10): 623-9
11116493

OBJECTIVE: We examined the new NasOral-System (NOS; Logomed, Germany), which is designed for a fasten and more complete denitrogenization when compared to the use of a contemporary face-mask. The patient inhales oxygen via a nose mask and exhales via mouthpiece. Nose mask and mouthpiece have built-in one-way valves, resulting in an unidirectional gas flow (nasal-oral).

METHODS: With approval of the local ethic committee, pre-oxygenation with both the NOS and a face mask (Laerdal) was studied in 50 adult patients. Midazolam 3.75-7.5 mg p.os was given for premedication. The NOS was studied in two different ways: the nose mask fastened by rubberband and with the nose mask held by hand. Prior to induction every patient received every system in a randomised manner. Semi-closed-anaesthetic circle-systems with a fresh-gas-flow of 10 litres/min were used. The FEO2 over 5 min of pre-oxygenation were recorded (AS-3, Datex). Speed and degree of the denitrogenization was documented by an external digital data-acquisition system. Practicability of the systems regarding the anaesthesists (n = 27) and patient comfort were evaluated by means of a standardized postoperative questionnaire.

RESULTS: The hand-held NOS is definitely more effective and reliable than both the NOS fastened by rubber-band and the classical face mask: 80% of the hand-held NOS were able to achieve a FEO2 of > or = 0.8 compared to only 36% of the NOS fixed by rubber-band, face mask: 48%. FEO2 of > or = 0.8 was achieved with 52% of the hand-held NOS in 90 s, a time we consider practical for daily routine, whereas only 10% of the NOS fixed by rubberband and 14% of the face masks accomplished this threshold. A cooperative patient is an important condition when using the NOS: a strong premedication effect, absence of dentures, and patients who can not inspire via nose and expire via mouth involve impairment of the positive effects of the NOS. 21% of the anaesthesists felt disturbed by the NOS. 72% do not believe, that induction of anaesthesia will become more safe with the NOS. For 8 patients, breathing with the NOS was disagreeable (face-mask: 3 patients), 15 were disturbed by the nose part/mouth piece (face-mask: no patient).

CONCLUSION: An acceptable FEO2 of > or = 0.8 can be achieved only without leakage of both the NOS and the face-mask. Therefore, routine FEO2-monitoring seems highly desirable. Efficiency of the hand-held NOS is much better than with the NOS fastened by rubberband or the face mask. However, even the hand-held NOS cannot guarantee for optimal denitrogenization. Practicability in daily use was poor, because a test of airway patency by manual ventilation prior to relaxation/intubation is not possible with the NOS. Using the device as a help in apnoic oxygenation seems useful.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
11116493
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"