Background Procedural sedation reduces patients’ discomfort and anxiety, facilitating performance of the examination and intervention. However, it may also cause adverse events, including airway obstruction and hypoxia. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) compared with that of standard oxygen therapy in adult patients undergoing procedural sedation. Methods We identified randomized controlled trials published before November 2020 based on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Intraprocedural desaturation [peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 90%] was evaluated as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the lowest SpO2, need for airway intervention, oxygen therapy-related complications, and patient, operator, and anesthetist’s satisfaction. Results Six trials with a total of 2633 patients were reviewed. Patients using HFNO compared with standard oxygen therapy had a significantly lower risk of intraprocedural desaturation [risk ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.87]. The lowest intraprocedural SpO2 in HFNO group was significantly higher than that in standard oxygen therapy group (mean difference 4.19%, 95% CI 1.74-6.65). Conclusions Compared with standard oxygen therapy, HFNO may reduce the risk of desaturation and increase the lowest SpO2 in adult patients undergoing sedation for medical procedures.
Univariate Multivariable HR (95% CI) p HR (95% CI) p Prognostic nutritional index 0.970 (0.960 -0.980) <0.
Background: Current practice guidelines recommend the use of nasal cannula as an alternative pre-oxygenation method for tracheal intubation. However, the efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard facemask oxygenation has not been fully evaluated.Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies published from January 1, 2000 to November 30, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials which compared high-flow nasal oxygenation and facemask oxygenation as the pre-oxygenation maneuver. Primary outcome was arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO 2 ) after preoxygenation. Secondary outcomes were safe apnea time, arterial desaturation during intubation, lowest peripheral capillary oxygen saturation during intubation, and patient comfort score. Random-effects models and Mantel-Haenszel method were used for data synthesis.Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials and 1148 patients were included. High-flow nasal oxygenation achieved a higher PaO 2 compared with facemask, mean difference: 64.86 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.33-97.40, P < .0001). Safe apnea time was longer in high-flow nasal oxygenation, mean difference: 131.03 seconds (95% CI: 59.39-202.66, P < .0001). There was no difference in the risk of peri-intubation desaturation or lowest peripheral capillary oxygen saturation between groups. Patient comfort score was higher in high-flow nasal oxygenation, mean difference: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.46-1.54, P = .0003).Conclusion: High-flow nasal oxygenation better enhanced PaO 2 and extended safe apnea time and is not inferior to facemask oxygenation in preventing desaturation during tracheal intubation. High-flow nasal oxygenation may be considered as an alternative method, especially for patients with a potential difficult airway.Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, FMO = facemask oxygenation, GA = general anesthesia, HFNO = high-flow nasal oxygenation, PaO 2 = arterial partial pressure of oxygen, PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure, PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, RR = risk ratio, SpO 2 = peripheral capillary oxygen saturation.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.