Comparison of preoxygenation using a tight facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and a standard nasal cannula – a volunteer, randomised, crossover study
Authors' conclusion
The efficacy of preoxygenation using a standard nasal cannula at high flow rates is no different to clinically used methods today.
Study context
- Population
- Cardiopulmonary healthy volunteers aged 25–65 years with BMI <30all received all three methods
- Participants
- 20 volunteers
- Comparison
- Facemask vs HFNO vs Standard nasal cannula
- Primary endpoint
- Preoxygenation efficacy assessed by EtO 2 levels, compared between methods and flow rates
- Follow-up
- After 3 min of preoxygenation
Methodological detailsvolunteer, single-centre, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm; 2 May to 31 May 2023
- Volunteer
- Single-centre
- Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm; 2 May to 31 May 2023
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
EtO 2 · 3 min
Further findings
Bi-nasal cannulae: closed vs open mouth breathing
- Greater preoxygenation efficacy with closed vs open mouth breathing
3 min normal breathing vs eight vital capacity breaths
- Greater preoxygenation efficacy with 3 min of normal breathing
Comfort
- Facemask and HFNO more comfortable than standard nasal cannula
Original publication
Comparison of preoxygenation using a tight facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and a standard nasal cannula – a volunteer, randomised, crossover study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. Published 16 April 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →