Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Anaesthesia. 2016 Nov;71(11):1280-1283. doi: 10.1111/anae.13607.

High-flow humidified nasal oxygenation vs. standard face mask oxygenation.

Author information

1
Anaesthetic Department, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. aranipillai@doctors.org.uk.
2
Anaesthetic Department, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.
3
Anaesthetic Department, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
4
Anaesthetic Department, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.

Abstract

Ten healthy volunteers received oxygen for 1 min, 2 min and 3 min at 10 l.min-1 via a face mask, or humidified oxygen at 60 l.min-1 via nasal prongs (OptiflowTM ) with the mouth closed and with the mouth open. The mean (SD) end-tidal oxygen partial pressure after 3 min face mask and Optiflow oxygenation, with mouth closed and open, were: 88.5 (6.2) kPa; 85.6 (6.4) kPa and 48.7 (26.4) kPa, respectively, p = 0.001. The equivalent mean (SD) transcutaneous oxygen partial pressures were: 34.6 (5.4) kPa; 36.4 (6.5) kPa and 25.5 (15.7) kPa, respectively, p = 0.03. High-flow humidified nasal oxygenation for 3 min with the mouth closed was as effective as 3 min face mask oxygenation.

KEYWORDS:

high-flow humidified nasal oxygen; pre-oxygenation; transcutaneous oxygen monitoring

PMID:
27734491
DOI:
10.1111/anae.13607
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center