Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mainly transmits via droplets and contact Airborne precautions are required for aerosol-generating procedures such as manual ventilation, intubation, extubation, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) Modifications in airway management are required to minimise aerosol generation Regional anaesthesia should be considered where possible Disease transmission can be minimised when perioperative care is thoroughly planned BACKGROUND The virus SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped, single stranded RNA virus that is 50-200nm in diameter(3). Though genetically 85% similar to SARS-CoV, which was the culprit of the SARS epidemic in 2003, SARS-CoV-2 is a distinctly new coronavirus (see Table 1). An online test is available for self-directed continuous medical education (CME). It is estimated to take 1 hour to complete. Please record time spent and report this to your accrediting body if you wish to claim CME points. A certificate will be awarded upon passing the test. Please refer to the accreditation policy here.
Summary We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of high‐flow nasal oxygen and conventional oxygen therapy during procedural sedation amongst adults and children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for randomised controlled trials that reported the effects of high‐flow nasal oxygen during procedural sedation. The primary outcome measure was hypoxaemia and the secondary outcomes were minimum oxygen saturation; hypercarbia; requirement for airway manoeuvres; and procedure interruptions. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk‐of bias tool and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). Nineteen randomised controlled trials (4121 patients) including three in children were included. Administration of high‐flow nasal oxygen reduced hypoxaemia, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.37 (0.24–0.56), p < 0.001; minor airway manoeuvre requirements, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.11–0.59), p < 0.001; procedural interruptions, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.17 (0.05–0.53), p = 0.002; and increased minimum oxygen saturation, mean difference (95%CI) 4.1 (2.70–5.50), p < 0.001; as compared with the control group. High‐flow nasal oxygen had no impact on hypercarbia, risk ratio (95%CI) 1.24 (0.97–1.58), p = 0.09, I2 = 0%. High‐flow nasal oxygen reduced the incidence of hypoxaemia regardless of the procedure involved, degree of fractional inspired oxygen, risk‐profile of patients and mode of propofol administration. The evidence was ascertained as moderate for all outcomes except for procedure interruptions. In summary, high‐flow nasal oxygen compared with conventional oxygenation techniques reduced the risk of hypoxaemia, increased minimum oxygen saturation and reduced the requirement for airway manoeuvres. High‐flow nasal oxygen should be considered in patients at risk of hypoxaemia during procedural sedation.
Objective: This review aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness of endoscopic drainage techniques against external drainage techniques for the treatment of orbital and subperiosteal abscesses as a complication of rhinosinusitis. Introduction: Transnasal endoscopic drainage and external drainage techniques have been used in the management of subperiosteal orbital abscesses secondary to rhinosinusitis. Each of these approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages, with extensive literature describing each technique separately. However, there is a lack of guidance in the studies on assessing and comparing the safety, effectiveness and suitability of these techniques. This review aims to compare the effectiveness of these techniques based on measuring outcomes in the literature such as: length of postoperative hospital stay, rate of revision surgery and complication rates. Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies will include people of all ages diagnosed with subperiosteal abscess, orbital abscess or cavernous sinus thrombosis (Chandler stages III–V) secondary to rhinosinusitis disease, who have also undergone drainage via either an endoscopic approach, external approach or combined surgical approach. Methods: A comprehensive search of both published and unpublished literature will be performed to uncover studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Reference lists of studies included in final analyses will also be manually searched and subject matter experts contacted to investigate other sources of literature. Two reviewers will screen studies and a third reviewer will resolve disagreements. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis with heterogeneity of data being assessed using the standard Chi-squared and I 2 tests.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.