Cargando…

Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent method that provides high-flow, heated, humidified gas delivery. OBJECTIVES: We compared HFNC (group HF) and conventional nasal cannula (NC) (group CO) during deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil for endoscopic submucosal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Seungwon, Choi, Ji Won, Chung, In Sun, Kim, Duk Kyung, Sim, Woo Seog, Kim, Tae Jun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10467296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37655054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562848231189957
_version_ 1785099085688078336
author Lee, Seungwon
Choi, Ji Won
Chung, In Sun
Kim, Duk Kyung
Sim, Woo Seog
Kim, Tae Jun
author_facet Lee, Seungwon
Choi, Ji Won
Chung, In Sun
Kim, Duk Kyung
Sim, Woo Seog
Kim, Tae Jun
author_sort Lee, Seungwon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent method that provides high-flow, heated, humidified gas delivery. OBJECTIVES: We compared HFNC (group HF) and conventional nasal cannula (NC) (group CO) during deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective observational cohort study. METHODS: In this study, a total of 159 cases were analyzed (group CO, 71 and group HF, 88). We collected the data from electronic medical records from September 2020 to June 2021. The lowest oxygen saturation (SpO(2)), incidence of hypoxia (SpO(2) < 90%), rescue interventions, and adverse events between the two groups were investigated. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two groups in lowest SpO(2) and incidence of hypoxia [group CO versus group HF; 90.3 ± 9.7% versus 95.7 ± 9.0%, 25 (35.2%) versus 10 (11.4%); p < 0.001, p < 0.001; respectively]. Among the rescue interventions, the number of jaw thrust, patient stimulation, O(2) flow increase, and nasal airway insertion were significantly higher in the CO group than in the HF group. However, postprocedural chest X-ray showed higher rates of abnormal findings (atelectasis, aspiration, and pneumoperitoneum) in group HF than in group CO [group CO: 8 (11.3%) versus group HF: 26 (29.5%), p = 0.005]. In multivariable analysis, besides group CO, difficult type of lesion was the risk factor for hypoxia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the conventional NC, HFNC provided adequate oxygenation and a stable procedure without significant adverse events during sedation for ESD. However, caution is needed to avoid complications associated with deep sedation and difficult type of lesions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10467296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104672962023-08-31 Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study Lee, Seungwon Choi, Ji Won Chung, In Sun Kim, Duk Kyung Sim, Woo Seog Kim, Tae Jun Therap Adv Gastroenterol Original Research BACKGROUND: The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent method that provides high-flow, heated, humidified gas delivery. OBJECTIVES: We compared HFNC (group HF) and conventional nasal cannula (NC) (group CO) during deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective observational cohort study. METHODS: In this study, a total of 159 cases were analyzed (group CO, 71 and group HF, 88). We collected the data from electronic medical records from September 2020 to June 2021. The lowest oxygen saturation (SpO(2)), incidence of hypoxia (SpO(2) < 90%), rescue interventions, and adverse events between the two groups were investigated. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two groups in lowest SpO(2) and incidence of hypoxia [group CO versus group HF; 90.3 ± 9.7% versus 95.7 ± 9.0%, 25 (35.2%) versus 10 (11.4%); p < 0.001, p < 0.001; respectively]. Among the rescue interventions, the number of jaw thrust, patient stimulation, O(2) flow increase, and nasal airway insertion were significantly higher in the CO group than in the HF group. However, postprocedural chest X-ray showed higher rates of abnormal findings (atelectasis, aspiration, and pneumoperitoneum) in group HF than in group CO [group CO: 8 (11.3%) versus group HF: 26 (29.5%), p = 0.005]. In multivariable analysis, besides group CO, difficult type of lesion was the risk factor for hypoxia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the conventional NC, HFNC provided adequate oxygenation and a stable procedure without significant adverse events during sedation for ESD. However, caution is needed to avoid complications associated with deep sedation and difficult type of lesions. SAGE Publications 2023-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10467296/ /pubmed/37655054 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562848231189957 Text en © The Author(s), 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Lee, Seungwon
Choi, Ji Won
Chung, In Sun
Kim, Duk Kyung
Sim, Woo Seog
Kim, Tae Jun
Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study
title Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study
title_full Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study
title_fullStr Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study
title_short Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study
title_sort comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10467296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37655054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562848231189957
work_keys_str_mv AT leeseungwon comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandconventionalnasalcannuladuringsedationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionaretrospectivestudy
AT choijiwon comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandconventionalnasalcannuladuringsedationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionaretrospectivestudy
AT chunginsun comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandconventionalnasalcannuladuringsedationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionaretrospectivestudy
AT kimdukkyung comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandconventionalnasalcannuladuringsedationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionaretrospectivestudy
AT simwooseog comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandconventionalnasalcannuladuringsedationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionaretrospectivestudy
AT kimtaejun comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandconventionalnasalcannuladuringsedationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionaretrospectivestudy