Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorEastwood, Glenn-
dc.contributor.otherO'Connell, Bev-
dc.contributor.otherGardner, Anne-
dc.contributor.otherConsidine, Julie-
dc.identifier.citationAnaesth Intensive Care. 2008 Sep;36(5):691-4en_US
dc.description.abstractNasopharyngeal oxygen (NPO) therapy may overcome some of the difficulties associated with nasal prongs and facemask oxygen delivery devices. In response to a lack of published studies of NPO therapy in adults, we conducted a prospective randomised crossover trial to compare the effectiveness of NPO, nasal prongs (NP) and facemasks (FM) when used in an adult population (n = 37) from the intensive care unit and general hospital wards. We measured oxygen saturation (SpO2) using pulse oximetry, oxygen flow (litres per minute), respiration rate (per minute) and comfort using a horizontal visual analogue scale. All three devices were effective in maintaining a SpO2 of > or = 95% (NP 97.0 +/- 1.9, NPO 97.7 +/- 1.7, FM 98.8 +/- 1.3%). NPO therapy consumed less oxygen than NP and FM therapy (NP 2.6 +/- 1.0, NPO 2.2 +/- 0.9, FM 6.1 +/- 0.4 l/min, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in patients' respiratory rates (NP 19.9 +/- 3.2, NPO 19.9 +/- 3.0, FM 19.8 +/- 3.1 per minute, P = 0.491). In terms of comfort, patients rated NP higher than NPO and FM using a horizontal visual analogue scale (100 mm = most comfortable) (NP 65.5 +/- 14.3, NPO 62.8 +/- 19.4, FM 49.4 +/- 21.4 mm, P < 0.001). We conclude that for adult patients, nasal prongs and nasopharyngeal oxygen therapy consume less oxygen and provide greater comfort than facemasks while still maintaining SpO2 > or = 95%.en_US
dc.subjectLaryngeal Masksen_US
dc.subjectNasal Cavityen_US
dc.subjectNasopharyngeal Oxygen Therapyen_US
dc.subjectNasal Prongsen_US
dc.subjectFacemask Oxygen Delivery Devicesen_US
dc.subjectOxygen Saturationen_US
dc.subjectCritical Care Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of nasopharyngeal oxygen, nasal prongs and facemask oxygen therapy devices in adult patients: a randomised crossover trial.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleAnasthesia and Intensive Careen_US
dc.type.studyortrialRandomized Controlled Clinical Trialen_US
Appears in Collections:Critical Care

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.