ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Comparison of Hypoxia Between HFNC and SNC in Patient Undergoing UGI Endoscopic Procedures in Deep Sedation
Hypoxia frequently occurs as a complication during upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed under deep sedation. Traditional oxygen delivery methods, such as the simple nasal cannula, are commonly used to prevent hypoxia in these cases. The high-flow nasal cannula, capable of delivering FiO2 levels of up to 1 and flow rates of up to 70 l/min, offers additional benefits, including positive end-expiratory pressure and reduced dead space. We hypothesized is that the use of high-flow nasal cannula can decrease the incidence of hypoxia in comparison to simple nasal cannula in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under deep sedation. This was prospective, comparative observational study conducted in a tertiary care center of Nepal with the primary objective to compare the rates of hypoxia (SpO2 \< 92%) and secondary objectives were to compare interruption of procedure due to hypoxia, minimum hypoxia level and episodes of hypoxia between high flow nasal canula (flow rate of 30l/min with FiO2 of 0.5) and simple nasal canula (flow rate of 6l/min) in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in semi-prone position in deep sedation using propofol infusion. The study comprised 125 participants, 58 in simple nasal canula and 67 in high flow nasal cannula group. The incidence of hypoxia in simple nasal cannula and high flow nasal cannula groups, with rates of 37.3% (22/58) and 16.4% (11/67), respectively. The relative risk (RR) of hypoxia was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.23-0.81), with a p-value of 0.009. Procedural interruptions due to hypoxia occurred in 8.6% (5/58) of participants in the simple nasal cannula group and 4.47% (3/67) in the high flow nasal cannula group, with RR of 0.17 (95% CI: 0.02-1.41) and a p-value 0.1. Furthermore, the occurrence of multiple episodes of hypoxia was higher in the simple nasal cannula group compared to the high flow nasal cannula group (5 vs. 0), with a p-value \< 0.001.The use of high flo
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Comparison of Physiological Effects of Two Types of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy in Tracheostomized Patients#803703
- Effect of High Flow Nasal Therapy (HFNC) Weaning Protocols vs Standard of Care on Respiratory Outcomes in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure#1088436
- Asymmetrical Versus Conventional High-flow Nasal Cannula in Acute Respiratory Failure#991729
- Post-extubation High-flow Nasal Oxygen for Preventing Extubation Failure#1093148
- Safety and Efficacy of High Flow Nasal Canula in Patients With Mild Hypercapnia#994132
Record · ID 811888
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive