Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, J.
Right arrow Articles by Schaffartzik, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, J.
Right arrow Articles by Schaffartzik, W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2001, Vol. 87, No. 6 928-931
© 2001 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Short Communications

Preoxygenation: a comparison of three different breathing systems

J. Hirsch, I. Führer, P. Kuhly and W. Schaffartzik

Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Hospital of the Free University of Berlin, Warener Straße 7, D-12683 Berlin, Germany*Corresponding author

An end-tidal expiratory oxygen concentration (FE'O2) greater than 0.90 is considered to be adequate for preoxygenation. This is generally achieved using a face mask, but this can be unsatisfactory in some patients. We compared preoxygenation in 30 healthy volunteers using a face mask, the NasOral system, which is a novel preoxygenation device, and a mouthpiece with a nose-clip. We measured the maximal FE'O2, the FE'O2 after 2 min and the time to reach maximal FE'O2 and recorded the subjective judgement of the volunteers. The maximal FE'O2 with face mask and mouthpiece was significantly greater than with the modified NasOral system (P<0.05 and P<0.01). With the former devices, a FE'O2 of 0.90 was achieved in 73% of the volunteers vs 46% with the modified NasOral system. Using the mouthpiece, the FE'O2 after 2 min was significantly higher than using the face mask (P<0.01) or the modified NasOral system (P<0.01). The time to maximal FE'O2 was significantly shorter using the modified NasOral system than with the face mask or mouthpiece (P<0.001 and P=0.0001). The volunteers gave more positive ratings to the face mask and mouthpiece than to the modified NasOral system (P<0.001 and P<0.01). We conclude that the use of a mouthpiece can improve preoxygenation in some patients. The results obtained with the modified NasOral system do not justify its introduction into clinical practice.

Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 928–31


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Emerg. Med. J.Home page
R A Stafford, J R Benger, and J Nolan
Self-inflating bag or Mapleson C breathing system for emergency pre-oxygenation?
Emerg. Med. J., March 1, 2008; 25(3): 153 - 155.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.