Literature DB >> 18497599

Nasal ventilation is more effective than combined oral-nasal ventilation during induction of general anesthesia in adult subjects.

Yafen Liang1, William R Kimball, Robert M Kacmarek, Warren M Zapol, Yandong Jiang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that nasal mask ventilation may be more effective than combined oral-nasal mask ventilation during induction of general anesthesia. They tested this hypothesis by comparing the volume of carbon dioxide removed per breath with nasal versus combined oral-nasal mask ventilation in nonparalyzed, apneic, adult subjects during induction of general anesthesia.
METHODS: Fifteen adult subjects receiving general anesthesia were ventilated first with a combined oral-nasal mask and then with only a nasal mask. The patient's head was maintained in a neutral position, without head extension or lower jaw thrust. Respiratory parameters were recorded simultaneously from both the nasal and oral masks regardless of ventilation approach.
RESULTS: The volume of carbon dioxide removed per breath during nasal mask ventilation (median, 5.0 ml; interquartile range, 3.4-8.8 ml) was significantly larger than that during combined oral-nasal mask ventilation (median, 0.0 ml; interquartile range, 0.0-0.4 ml; P = 0.001); even the peak inspiratory airway pressure during nasal ventilation (16.7 +/- 2.7 cm H2O) was lower than that during combined oral-nasal ventilation (24.5 +/- 4.7 cm H2O; P = 0.002). The expiratory tidal volume during nasal ventilation (259.8 +/- 134.2 ml) was also larger than that during combined oral-nasal ventilation (98.9 +/- 103.4 ml; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Nasal mask ventilation was more effective than combined oral-nasal mask ventilation in apneic, nonparalyzed, adult subjects during induction of general anesthesia. The authors suggest that nasal mask ventilation, rather than full facemask ventilation, be considered during induction of anesthesia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18497599     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318174f027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  7 in total

1.  Validation of Respiratory Inductance Plethysmography for Measuring Tidal Volume in Swine.

Authors:  Zhenbo Su; Jun Oto; Jingwen Wang; William R Kimball; Christopher T Chenelle; Robert M Kacmarek; David R King; Yandong Jiang; Michael J Duggan
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 0.982

2.  Nasal versus oronasal mask in patients under auto-adjusting continuous positive airway pressure titration: a real-life study.

Authors:  Ricardo L M Duarte; Bruno A Mendes; Tiago S Oliveira-E-Sá; Flavio J Magalhães-da-Silveira; David Gozal
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Choosing an Oronasal Mask to Deliver Continuous Positive Airway Pressure May Cause More Upper Airway Obstruction or Lead to Higher Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Requirements than a Nasal Mask in Some Patients: A Case Series.

Authors:  Justin R Ng; Vinod Aiyappan; Jeremy Mercer; Peter G Catcheside; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; R Doug McEvoy; Nick Antic
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.062

4.  Society of anesthesia and sleep medicine: proceedings of 2012 annual meeting.

Authors:  Roop Kaw; Babak Mokhlesi; Frances Chung; Peter Gay; Norman Bolden; David Hillman
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 2.816

5.  Body Position May Influence Oronasal CPAP Effectiveness to Treat OSA.

Authors:  Juliana Araújo Nascimento; Tômas de Santana Carvalho; Henrique Takachi Moriya; Paulo Henrique Sousa Fernandes; Rafaela Garcia Santos de Andrade; Pedro Rodrigues Genta; Geraldo Lorenzi-Filho; Naomi Kondo Nakagawa
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.062

6.  Continuous positive airway pressure and ventilation are more effective with a nasal mask than a full face mask in unconscious subjects: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jun Oto; Qian Li; William R Kimball; Jingping Wang; Abdolnabi S Sabouri; Priscilla G Harrell; Robert M Kacmarek; Yandong Jiang
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Nasal mask ventilation is better than face mask ventilation in edentulous patients.

Authors:  Mukul Chandra Kapoor; Sandeep Rana; Arvind Kumar Singh; Vindhya Vishal; Indranil Sikdar
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.