Background and Aim A number of studies were able to show a reduction of hypoxemia episodes during procedural sedation through the use of capnography (CA). The present study investigates the number of episodes of hypoxemia during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement with propofol sedation comparing standard monitoring (SM) versus SM with additional CA surveillance. Methods In this single center randomized controlled trial, 150 patients were prospectively randomized 1:1 in either the SM group or the CA group after stratification for ASA class, PEG method (push or pull method), presence of head and neck tumor, and tracheostomy. CA analysis was performed for all patients but was blinded for the endoscopic team in the SM group. Results In the SM group, 57% episodes of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 15 s) and 41% episodes of severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 85% for > 15 s) were observed in comparison with 28% and 20% in the CA group, respectively. Odds ratios for hypoxemia and severe hypoxemia were 0.29 (confidence interval 0.15–0.57; P = 0.0005) and 0.35 (confidence interval 0.17–0.73; P = 0.008) in favor of the CA group. On average, CA was able to detect imminent mild and severe hypoxemia 83 and 99 s before standard monitoring. Standard monitoring represented an independent risk factor for hypoxemia and severe hypoxemia. Conclusions Respiratory complications of sedation during PEG placement are frequent events. CA is able to detect imminent hypoxemia at an early time point. This allows an early intervention and consecutively the avoidance of mild and severe hypoxemia. Therefore, CA monitoring can be recommended particularly during PEG insertion procedures.

BACKGROUND: Genesis and the prognostic value of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in COVID-19 remain partially described. The objective of our study was to characterize OD during SARS-CoV-2 infection and to examine whether testing of OD may be a useful tool in clinical practice in order to early identify patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Olfactory function assessment was objectively carried out using the u-Smell-it® test. In a cross-sectional study part, we evaluated this test in a control cohort of SARS-CoV-2 negative tested patients, who attended the University Hospital Frankfurt between May 2021 and March 2022. In a second longitudinal study part, sensitivity and specificity of OD was evaluated as a diagnostic marker of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in Frankfurt am Main, Germany in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and their close contacts. RESULTS: Among 494 SARS-CoV-2 negative tested patients, OD was detected in 45.7% and was found to be significantly associated with the male gender (p < 0.001), higher age (p < 0.001), cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities (p < 0.001; p = 0.03). Among 90 COVID-19 positive patients, OD was found in 65.6% and was significantly associated with male gender and positive smoking status (p = 0.04 each). Prevalence and severity of OD were significantly increased in infections with the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) compared to those with the Omicron variant (BA.1.1.529). Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of OD for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection were 69% and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSION: OD is common in COVID-19 negative and positive tested patients with significantly different prevalence rates observed between different variants. Diagnostic accuracy of OD is not high enough to implement olfactory testing as a tool in diagnostic routine to early identify patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

No abstract