Nasopharyngeal Ventilation Compared to Facemask Ventilation: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial in Two Different Elective Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Facemask ventilation is routinely used to preoxygenate patients before endotracheal intubation during anesthesia induction or to secure ventilation in patients with respiratory insufficiency. Occasionally, facemask ventilation cannot be performed adequately. The placement of a regular endotracheal tube through the nose into the hypopharynx may be a valid alternative to improve ventilation and oxygenation before endotracheal intubation (nasopharyngeal ventilation). We tested the hypothesis that nasopharyngeal ventilation is superior in its efficacy compared to traditional facemask ventilation. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, crossover trial, we enrolled surgical patients requiring either nasal intubation (cohort #1, n = 20) or patients who met "difficult to mask ventilate" criteria (cohort #2, n = 20). Patients in each cohort were randomly assigned to receive pressure-controlled facemask ventilation followed by nasopharyngeal ventilation or vice versa. The ventilation settings were kept constant. The primary outcome was tidal volume. The secondary outcome was the difficulty of ventilation, measured using the Warters grading scale. RESULTS: Tidal volume was significantly increased by nasopharyngeal ventilation in cohort #1 (597 ± 156 ml vs.462 ± 220 ml, p = 0.019) and cohort #2 (525 ± 157 ml vs.259 ± 151 ml, p < 0.01). Warters grading scale for mask ventilation was 0.6 ± 1.4 in cohort #1, and 2.6 ± 1.5 in cohort #2. CONCLUSION: Patients at risk for difficult facemask ventilation may benefit from nasopharyngeal ventilation to maintain adequate ventilation and oxygenation before endotracheal intubation. This ventilation mode may offer another option for ventilation at induction of anesthesia and during the management of respiratory insufficiency, especially in the setting of "unexpected" ventilation difficulty.

A Case of General Anesthesia for a Young Infant in Whom Intubation Was Suspected to Be Difficult Because of a Thyrolingual Cyst.

This is a case report of an infant who underwent thyrolingual cystectomy under general anesthesia. Two tracheal tubes were used: 1 for nasopharyngeal airway and the other for fiberoptic intubation. With this method, nasal intubation was successfully performed without hypoxia and hypercapnia even in a 3-month-old infant. We concluded this is a useful intubation method for infants who are predicted to be a difficult intubation.

Ventilación nasofaríngea versus presión positiva continua de la vía aérea nasal como método ventilatorio de rescate: Reporte preliminar / Nasopharyngeal ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as rescue ventilatory method: Preliminary report

Objetivo: Comparar la presión continua positiva de la vía aérea nasal y la ventilación nasofaríngea. Material y métodos: Ensayo clínico aleatorizado que incluyó a todos los recién nacidos admitidos a la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Neonatales del INPer que presentaron dificultad respiratoria y requerían soporte ventilatorio. Se incluyeron 28 individuos, divididos en dos grupos: el primero de 12 pacientes, manejado con ventilación nasofaríngea, y el segundo de 16 pacientes, tratados con presión positiva continua de la vía aérea nasal. Criterios de inclusión: Neonatos con dificultad respiratoria y automatismo respiratorio que requerían apoyo ventilatorio. Criterios de exclusión: Patología nasal, malformaciones congénitas mayores, trastorno neuromuscular, síndrome de fuga aérea y antecedente de cirugía o patología de abdomen. Variables: edad gestacional, peso, días de vida, enfermedad de fondo, método ventilatorio previo, días de aplicación de la ventilación, indicación del método de ventilación, complicaciones, tasa de éxito. Se usó estadística descriptiva y para la comparación de los grupos χ² o U de Mann-Whitney. Resultados: En el grupo de ventilación nasofaríngea hubo nueve neonatos pretérmino hipotróficos, mientras que en el grupo de presión positiva continua de la vía aérea nasal hubo seis neonatos pretérmino hipotróficos. Todos los neonatos ingresaron al estudio en fase I de ventilación. La indicación predominante para la aplicación del método de rescate en el grupo de ventilación nasofaríngea fue apnea, y en el grupo de presión positiva continua de la vía aérea nasal, dificultad respiratoria. La ventilación nasofaríngea falló en cinco pacientes (41.6%) y la presión positiva continua de la vía aérea nasal en tres (18.7%), sin haber diferencia estadística.

Objective: To compare the nasal continuous positive airway pressure and nasopharyngeal ventilation. Methods: Randomized clinical trial that included all infants admitted at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the INPer, who had respiratory distress and required ventilatory support. In total were included 28 neonates, divided into two groups, the first with 12 patients with nasopharyngeal ventilation, and the second with 16 neonates in nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Inclusion criteria: Infants with respiratory distress and respiratory automatism that required ventilatory support. Exclusion criteria: Nasal pathology, major congenital malformations, neuromuscular disorder, air leak syndrome, previous abdominal surgery or intestinal disease. Study variables: gestational age, weight, days of life, underlying disease, prior ventilatory support method of ventilation, days of application, indications, complications, rate of success. We used descriptive statistics and for comparison of the groups χ2 or Mann-Whitney U. Results: The group with nasopharyngeal ventilation had nine preterm hypotrophic neonates; the group in nasal continuous positive airway pressure had six preterm hypotrophic neonates. At the moment of admission to the study all the neonates were in phase I of ventilation. The predominant indication of ventilation at the nasopharyngeal ventilation group was apnea, and respiratory distress for nasal continuous positive airway pressure group. Nasopharyngeal ventilation failed in five patients (41.6%) and three (18.7%) in nasal continuous positive airway pressure group, without statistical difference.

Ventilación nasofaríngea con presión positiva intermitente como método de extubación en recién nacidos pretérmino menores de 1,500 g / Nasopharyngeal ventilation with intermittent positive pressure like extubation method on preterm new born smallest than 1,500 g

Introducción: La ventilación nasofaríngea (VNF) no invasiva es un método que se ha utilizado para poder extubar a pacientes con ventilación mecánica, con lo cual se busca reducir el número de complicaciones; sin embargo, en el campo de la neonatología no se ha establecido como método rutinario. Objetivo: Evaluar la eficacia de la ventilación nasofaríngea con presión positiva intermitente (VNF/PPI) como método ventilatorio, posterior al proceso de extubación en recién nacidos (RN) < de 1,500 g, en comparación con RN sometidos a presión positiva continua de la vía aérea nasal (CPAPN) y cámara cefálica (CC). Material y métodos: Se llevó a cabo un ensayo clínico aleatorizado conformado por 90 neonatos estables clínica y gasométricamente durante su primer evento de extubación. Los pacientes fueron asignados en forma aleatoria en tres grupos: el grupo I con VNF/ PPI (n = 30) el grupo II con CPAPN (n = 30) y el grupo III con CC (n = 30). Las variables de interés incluyeron: éxito en la extubación, parámetros gasométricos y clínicos durante 72 h posteriores a la extubación, diagnóstico de ingreso, uso de surfactante, aminofilina, esteroides, tiempo de ventilación, edad gestacional y peso. Resultados: No hubo diferencias en cuanto a variables como peso, edad gestacional, uso de surfactante, esteroides y diagnóstico de ingreso en los tres grupos. El grupo I tuvo éxito (permanecer en la VNF o CC al menos 24 h o no necesitar ser intubado nuevamente) en 93.4%, el grupo II: 60% y el III: 80% (p = 0.009). Las complicaciones se presentaron en 20%, 73.3% y 63.3%, respectivamente. Conclusión: La VNF/PPI mostró ser un método efectivo y seguro, en comparación con los otros métodos de extubación, por lo que es posible proponerlo como una estrategia útil de extubación, en recién nacidos prematuros estables, menores de 1,500 g.

Introduction: The non invasive nasopharyngeal ventilation (NPV) is a method that has been used to extubate patient with mechanical ventilation, to reduce the number of complications, however, in neonatology it is not used as routinary method. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of nasopharyngeal ventilation with intermittent positive pressure (NPV/IPP) as ventilatory method, after extubation process in preterm new born smaller than < 1,500 g, in comparison with new born with continuous positive pressure of air nasal via (CPAPN) and cephalic camera (CC). Material and methods: It was carried out a randomized clinical trial conformed by 90 NB on clinic and gasometric stable state, during their first extubation event. The patients were randomly assigned to one of in three groups: group I with NPV/IPP (n = 30); group II with CPAPN (n = 30); and the group III with CC (n = 30). The variables of interest included: successfully extubation, gasometrics and clinical parameters during 72 h after the extubation, initial diagnosis, surfactant, aminophylline and steroids use, time of ventilation, gestational age and weight. Results: There were not differences in as weight, gestational age, surfactant use, steroids and initial diagnosis among the 3 groups. Group I, was successful (to remain in the NPV or CC at least 24 h or not do need intubation again in 93.4%, group II: 60% and the III: 80% (p = 0.009). The complications were presented in 20%, 73.3% and 63.3%, respectively. Conclusion: The (NPV/IPP) showed to be an effective and safe method, in comparison with the other extubation methods, for allowing to propose it like as useful extubation strategy, in stable premature new born smaller than 1,500 g.