Cargando…

High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are few trials studying the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during deep sedation. Our hypothesis is that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) will prevent hypoxemia and desaturation as compared to low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC) during prolonged deep sedation in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Homberg, Marloes C., Bouman, Esther A., Linz, Dominik, van Kuijk, Sander M. J., Joosten, Bert A., Buhre, Wolfgang F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9082831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35534903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06362-1
_version_ 1784703289358548992
author Homberg, Marloes C.
Bouman, Esther A.
Linz, Dominik
van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
Joosten, Bert A.
Buhre, Wolfgang F.
author_facet Homberg, Marloes C.
Bouman, Esther A.
Linz, Dominik
van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
Joosten, Bert A.
Buhre, Wolfgang F.
author_sort Homberg, Marloes C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are few trials studying the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during deep sedation. Our hypothesis is that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) will prevent hypoxemia and desaturation as compared to low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC) during prolonged deep sedation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). METHODS: A single-centre, randomised controlled trial with HFNC as the intervention and LFNC as the control group. A total of 94 adult patients per group undergoing elective radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation under deep sedation. will be included. The primary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO(2)). Secondary outcomes are as follows: the duration of lowest SpO(2), cross over from oxygen therapy in both directions, incidence of SpO(2) below 90% > 60 seconds, adverse sedation events, adverse effects of HFNC, mean CO(2), peak CO(2) and patients experience with oxygen therapy. The study will take place during the 2-day admission period for RFCA. Patients can fill out their questionnaires in the first week after treatment. DISCUSSION: HFNC is increasingly used as a technique for oxygen delivery in procedural sedation and analgesia. We hypothesise that HFNC is superior to the standard treatment LFNC in patients under deep sedation with respect to the incidence of desaturation. To our knowledge, there are no adequately powered clinical trial studies on the effects of HFNC in prolonged deep sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04842253. Registered on 04 April 2021
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9082831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90828312022-05-10 High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial Homberg, Marloes C. Bouman, Esther A. Linz, Dominik van Kuijk, Sander M. J. Joosten, Bert A. Buhre, Wolfgang F. Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are few trials studying the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during deep sedation. Our hypothesis is that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) will prevent hypoxemia and desaturation as compared to low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC) during prolonged deep sedation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). METHODS: A single-centre, randomised controlled trial with HFNC as the intervention and LFNC as the control group. A total of 94 adult patients per group undergoing elective radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation under deep sedation. will be included. The primary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO(2)). Secondary outcomes are as follows: the duration of lowest SpO(2), cross over from oxygen therapy in both directions, incidence of SpO(2) below 90% > 60 seconds, adverse sedation events, adverse effects of HFNC, mean CO(2), peak CO(2) and patients experience with oxygen therapy. The study will take place during the 2-day admission period for RFCA. Patients can fill out their questionnaires in the first week after treatment. DISCUSSION: HFNC is increasingly used as a technique for oxygen delivery in procedural sedation and analgesia. We hypothesise that HFNC is superior to the standard treatment LFNC in patients under deep sedation with respect to the incidence of desaturation. To our knowledge, there are no adequately powered clinical trial studies on the effects of HFNC in prolonged deep sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04842253. Registered on 04 April 2021 BioMed Central 2022-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9082831/ /pubmed/35534903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06362-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Homberg, Marloes C.
Bouman, Esther A.
Linz, Dominik
van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
Joosten, Bert A.
Buhre, Wolfgang F.
High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial
title High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial
title_full High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial
title_short High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial
title_sort high-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9082831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35534903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06362-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hombergmarloesc highflownasalcannulaversusstandardlowflownasalcannuladuringdeepsedationinpatientsundergoingradiofrequencyatrialfibrillationcatheterablationasinglecentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT boumanesthera highflownasalcannulaversusstandardlowflownasalcannuladuringdeepsedationinpatientsundergoingradiofrequencyatrialfibrillationcatheterablationasinglecentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT linzdominik highflownasalcannulaversusstandardlowflownasalcannuladuringdeepsedationinpatientsundergoingradiofrequencyatrialfibrillationcatheterablationasinglecentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT vankuijksandermj highflownasalcannulaversusstandardlowflownasalcannuladuringdeepsedationinpatientsundergoingradiofrequencyatrialfibrillationcatheterablationasinglecentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT joostenberta highflownasalcannulaversusstandardlowflownasalcannuladuringdeepsedationinpatientsundergoingradiofrequencyatrialfibrillationcatheterablationasinglecentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT buhrewolfgangf highflownasalcannulaversusstandardlowflownasalcannuladuringdeepsedationinpatientsundergoingradiofrequencyatrialfibrillationcatheterablationasinglecentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial