Skip Navigation

Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 1997 43(1):47-49; doi:10.1093/tropej/43.1.47
© 1997 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kumar, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kumar, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

research-article

Efficacy and Acceptability of Different Modes of Oxygen Administration in Children: Implications for a Community Hospital

Rohit Manoj Kumar, MBBS, Sushil K. Kabra, MD and Meharban Singh, MD

Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110 029, India

Author for correspondence: Professor Meharban Singh

Eighty under-five children admitted in the pediatric ward with acute respiratory distress requiring oxygen inhalation were prospectively studied. Oxygen was administered to all the children by head box, face mask, nasopharyngeal catheter, and twin-holed prenasal catheter in a predetermined sequence. Oxygen was delivered at a flow rate of 41/min in the head box and by face mask and at a rate of 11/min for nasopharyngeal catheter and twin-holed prenasal catheter. There was a significant rise in paO2 and SaO2 values with all the oxygen delivery methods. The number of children who achieved paO2 of >90 mmHg with oxygen delivered by head box was 53 (69 per cent), with face mask 37 (57 percent), with nasopharyngeal catheter 13 (26 per cent), and with twin-holed prenasal catheter 18 (25 percent).

In view of high acceptability of twin-holed prenasal catheter, a further pilot study involving 10 children was carried out to compare the efficacy of head box and twin-holed prenasal catheter at an identical oxygen flow rate of 4 1/min. The number of children achieving paO2 of > 90 mmHg were comparable, i.e. seven (70 per cent) and eight (80 per cent) when the oxygen was delivered by head box and twin-holed prenasal catheter, respectively.

It is concluded that both head box and twin-holed prenasal catheter are equally effective, acceptable and safe methods for administration of oxygen to children with acute respiratory disorders. In view of the cost-effectiveness, and easy availability and affordability of twin-holed prenasal catheter, it should be popularized in the small hospitals in the community, while head box should be reserved for use in the referral hospitals.


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
 PediatricsHome page
P. Davies, D. Cheng, A. Fox, and L. Lee
The Efficacy Of Noncontact Oxygen Delivery Methods
Pediatrics, November 1, 2002; 110(5): 964 - 967.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
British Thoracic Society of Standards of Care Comm
BTS Guidelines for the Management of Community Acquired Pneumonia in Childhood
Thorax, May 1, 2002; 57(90001): i1 - 24.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
E. Ling, L. McDonald, T. R.J. Dinesen, and D. DuVall
The OxyArmTM - a new minimal contact oxygen delivery system for mouth or nose breathing : [Le nouveau systeme de distribution d'oxygene a contact minimal OxyArmTM pour la respiration buccale ou nasale]
Can J Anesth, March 1, 2002; 49(3): 297 - 301.
[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.