We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparison of nasal prongs and nasopharyngeal catheter for the delivery of oxygen in children with hypoxemia because of a lower respiratory tract infection.
Journal of Pediatrics 1995 September
OBJECTIVE: To determine the best method of oxygen delivery for children in developing countries who have hypoxemia caused by acute lower respiratory tract infection.
METHODS: One hundred eighteen children between 7 days and 5 years of age with a lower respiratory tract infection and arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation (Sao2) less than 90% were randomly selected to receive oxygen by nasopharyngeal (NP) catheter (n = 56) or nasal prongs (n = 62). A crossover study to determine the flow rate necessary to achieve an Sao2 of 95% was performed in 60 children.
RESULTS: One hundred twelve children could be oxygenated by the allocated method; in six oxygenation was poor with either method. The mean duration of therapy was 87.5 hours for the prongs and 94.9 hours for the NP catheter (not significant). The median oxygen consumption was 2142 L for prongs and 1692 L for the NP catheter (not significant). In the crossover study the prongs needed, on average, 26% higher oxygen flow rates than the NP catheter to obtain an Sao2 of 95% (p = 0.003). Complete nasal obstruction was observed in 24 of the children (44%) in the NP catheter group and in 8 (13%) in the prongs group (p < 0.001). Eighteen children died, 11 with NP catheter and 7 with prongs (not significant).
CONCLUSIONS: Because nasal prongs are less prone to complications, and oxygenation in children is equally effective, they are a more appropriate method than the NP catheter for oxygen delivery to children in developing countries with acute lower respiratory tract infections.
METHODS: One hundred eighteen children between 7 days and 5 years of age with a lower respiratory tract infection and arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation (Sao2) less than 90% were randomly selected to receive oxygen by nasopharyngeal (NP) catheter (n = 56) or nasal prongs (n = 62). A crossover study to determine the flow rate necessary to achieve an Sao2 of 95% was performed in 60 children.
RESULTS: One hundred twelve children could be oxygenated by the allocated method; in six oxygenation was poor with either method. The mean duration of therapy was 87.5 hours for the prongs and 94.9 hours for the NP catheter (not significant). The median oxygen consumption was 2142 L for prongs and 1692 L for the NP catheter (not significant). In the crossover study the prongs needed, on average, 26% higher oxygen flow rates than the NP catheter to obtain an Sao2 of 95% (p = 0.003). Complete nasal obstruction was observed in 24 of the children (44%) in the NP catheter group and in 8 (13%) in the prongs group (p < 0.001). Eighteen children died, 11 with NP catheter and 7 with prongs (not significant).
CONCLUSIONS: Because nasal prongs are less prone to complications, and oxygenation in children is equally effective, they are a more appropriate method than the NP catheter for oxygen delivery to children in developing countries with acute lower respiratory tract infections.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app