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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |