Cited by 48Airway Management and Intubation TechniquesRespiratory Support and MechanismsAnesthesia and Sedative Agents

Flush rate oxygen for emergency airway preoxygenation

Driver, Brian E., Prekker, Matthew E., Kornas, Rebecca L., Cales, Ellen K., Reardon, Robert F.·2017·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective Recent data suggest that emergency airway preoxygenation with a bag-valve-mask (BVM) device (held with a tight mask seal but without squeezing the bag) is superior to a nonrebreather (NRB) mask at standard oxygen flow rates. We seek to determine whether preoxygenation with an NRB mask with flush rate oxygen (>40 L/min by fully opening a standard oxygen flowmeter) is noninferior to BVM device with standard-flow oxygen (15 L/min). We also seek to compare the efficacy of preoxygenation with NRB mask at flush rate oxygen with both NRB mask with oxygen at 15 L/min and simple mask at flush rate oxygen. Methods We performed a crossover trial using healthy volunteers. In random sequence, subjects underwent 3-minute trials of preoxygenation with nonrebreather mask with oxygen at 15 L/min (NRB-15), nonrebreather mask with flush rate oxygen (NRB-Flush), BVM device with oxygen at 15 L/min (BVM-15), and simple mask with flush rate oxygen. The primary outcome measure was the FeO 2 in a single exhaled breath. We compared the FeO 2 of NRB-Flush to other study groups, using a prespecified noninferiority margin of 10%. Results We enrolled 26 subjects. Mean FeO 2 values for NRB-15, NRB-Flush, BVM-15, and simple mask with flush rate oxygen were 54% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50% to 57%), 86% (95% CI 84% to 88%), 77% (95% CI 74% to 81%), and 72% (95% CI 69% to 76%), respectively. FeO 2 for NRB-Flush was noninferior to BVM-15 (difference 8%; 95% CI 5% to 11%). FeO 2 for NRB-Flus…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.06.018

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Delivery of close to 100% oxygen for approximately 4 minutes is required to denitrogenate normal lungs.

    “Delivery of close to 100% oxygen for approximately 4 minutes is required to denitrogenate normal lungs and may be most easily accomplished with high-flow, “flush-rate” (40 LPM) oxygen using a conventional non-rebreather mask.105”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [105]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Driver, B. E., Prekker, M. E., Kornas, R. L., Cales, E. K., & Reardon, R. F.
Affiliations
Hennepin County Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Driver, Brian E.
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
1-6
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2509255468
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
Keywords
emergency airway management, bag-valve-mask, oxygen flow rate, non-inferiority, crossover trial
MeSH terms
Adult, Emergency Medical Services, Female, Humans, Male, Oxygen, Laryngeal Masks, Airway Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review