High-flow humidified nasal oxygenation vs. standard face mask oxygenation

49Citations
Citations of this article
87Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Ten healthy volunteers received oxygen for 1 min, 2 min and 3 min at 10 l.min−1 via a face mask, or humidified oxygen at 60 l.min−1 via nasal prongs (OptiflowTM) with the mouth closed and with the mouth open. The mean (SD) end-tidal oxygen partial pressure after 3 min face mask and Optiflow oxygenation, with mouth closed and open, were: 88.5 (6.2) kPa; 85.6 (6.4) kPa and 48.7 (26.4) kPa, respectively, p = 0.001. The equivalent mean (SD) transcutaneous oxygen partial pressures were: 34.6 (5.4) kPa; 36.4 (6.5) kPa and 25.5 (15.7) kPa, respectively, p = 0.03. High-flow humidified nasal oxygenation for 3 min with the mouth closed was as effective as 3 min face mask oxygenation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pillai, A., Daga, V., Lewis, J., Mahmoud, M., Mushambi, M., & Bogod, D. (2016). High-flow humidified nasal oxygenation vs. standard face mask oxygenation. Anaesthesia, 71(11), 1280–1283. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13607

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free