Evaluation of nasopharyngeal oxygen, nasal prongs and facemask oxygen therapy devices in adult patients: a randomised crossover trial

Nasopharyngeal oxygen (NPO) therapy may overcome some of the difficulties associated with nasal prongs and facemask oxygen delivery devices. In response to a lack of published studies of NPO therapy in adults, we conducted a prospective randomised crossover trial to compare the effectiveness of NPO, nasal prongs (NP) and facemasks (FM) when used in an adult population (n=37) from the intensive care unit and general hospital wards. We measured oxygen saturation (Sp[O.sub.2]) using pulse oximetry, oxygen flow (litres per minute), respiration rate (per minute) and comfort using a horizontal visual analogue scale. All three devices were effective in maintaining a Sp[O.sub.2] of [greater than or equal to]95% (NP 97.0[+ or -]1.9, NPO 97.7[+ or -]1.7, FM 98.8[+ or -]1.3%). NPO therapy consumed less oxygen than NP and FM therapy (NP 2.6[+ or -]1.0, NPO 2.2[+ or -]0.9, FM 6.1[+ or -]0.4 l/min, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in patients' respiratory rates (NP 19.9[+ or -]3.2, NPO 19.9[+ or -]3.0, FM 19.8[+ or -]3.1 per minute, P=0.491). In terms of comfort, patients rated NP higher than NPO and FM using a horizontal visual analogue scale (100 mm=most comfortable) (NP 65.5[+ or -]14.3, NPO 62.8[+ or -]19.4, FM 49.4[+ or -]21.4 mm, P <0.001). We conclude that for adult patients, nasal prongs and nasopharyngeal oxygen therapy consume less oxygen and provide greater comfort than facemasks while still maintaining Sp[O.sub.2] [greater than or equal to]95%. <br />