Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on hypoxaemia during procedural sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparing oxygen therapies for hypoxemia prevention during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Hypoxemia is the most frequent adverse event observed during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation. An optimum oxygen therapy has still not been conclusively determined.

DESIGN

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

SETTING

Digestive Endoscopy Center.

PATIENTS

Adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

Pubmed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov. were searched until June 30, 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing any oxygen therapy with another oxygen therapy or with placebo (nasal cannula, NC) were included.

MEASUREMENT

The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as the pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2). Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed. Data are reported as odds ratios (OR), prediction intervals (PrI) and 95% CI. Bias risk was evaluated following the guidelines outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of evidence was evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs with a total of 7552 patients. Compared to the use of NC, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) demonstrated superior efficacy in mitigating hypoxemia (NIPPV vs. NC, OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08-0.31, 95% PrI: 0.06-0.41), followed by Wei nasal jet tube (WNJT) (WNJT vs. NC, OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.30, 95% PrI: 0.07-0.42). The efficacy for preventing hypoxemia was ranked as follows: NIPPV > WNJT > oropharynx/nasopharyngeal catheter > high-flow nasal oxygenation > nasal mask > NC.

CONCLUSIONS

During gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation, all other advanced oxygen therapies were found to be more efficacious than nasal cannula. NIPPV and WNJT appear to be the most efficacious oxygen therapy for preventing hypoxemia. Additionally, clinicians should make a choice regarding the most suitable oxygen therapy based on the risk population, type of endoscopy and adverse events.

Place of high-flow nasal oxygen in nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to assess the utility of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of procedural interventions under deep sedation in NORA is still increasing. Administration of oxygen is recommended to prevent hypoxemia and is usually delivered with standard oxygen through nasal cannula or a face mask. HFNO is a simple alternative with a high warmed humidified flow (ranging from 30 to 70 l/min) with a precise fraction inspired of oxygen (ranging from 21 to 100%). Compared to standard oxygen, HFNO has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and the need for airway maneuvers. Research on HFNO has primarily focused on its application in gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. Yet, it has also shown promising results in various other procedural interventions including bronchoscopy, cardiology, and endovascular procedures. However, the adoption of HFNO prompted considerations regarding cost-effectiveness and environmental impact.

SUMMARY

HFNO emerges as a compelling alternative to conventional oxygen delivery methods for preventing hypoxemia during procedural interventions in NORA. However, its utilization should be reserved for patients at moderate-to-high risk to mitigate the impact of cost and environmental factors.

The effectiveness of transnasal high flow nasal cannula in bronchoscopy under sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical application effects of transnasal high flow nasal cannula compared to other conventional modalities for oxygen therapy devices in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in multiple English databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to collect relevant studies on the application of high flow nasal cannula in patients undergoing bronchoscopy, and conducted a meta-analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, following the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

A total of 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included, involving 1,631 patients (HFNC group: n = 811, other oxygen therapy group: n = 820). The meta-analysis results demonstrated that HFNC significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and improved the minimum oxygen saturation compared to conventional oxygen therapy (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.41, p < 0.00001; MD = 6.09, 95% CI: 3.73-8.45, p < 0.00001). Furthermore, HFNC showed statistically significant differences when compared to non-invasive ventilation in terms of hypoxemia incidence (RR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.13-10.97, p = 0.03) and minimum oxygen saturation (MD = -1.97, 95% CI: -2.97--0.98, p < 0.0001). In addition, HFNC resulted in significantly shorter surgical time and higher PaO2 at the end of the procedure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (MD = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.66-2.40, p = 0.0006; MD = 15.52, 95% CI: 10.12-20.92, p < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in PaCO2, EtCO2, and MAP at the end of the procedure (MD = 1.23, 95% CI: -0.74-3.20, p = 0.22; MD = -0.35, 95% CI: -3.77-3.06, p = 0.84; MD = -0.54, 95% CI: -2.44-1.36, p = 0.58).

Conclusion

When HFNC or NIV is utilized during the examination and treatment of bronchoscopy patients, both oxygenation modalities enhance oxygenation function and reduce the incidence of hypoxemia compared to conventional oxygen therapy. HFNC can be regarded as a viable alternative to NIV for specific high-risk patients undergoing bronchoscopy. It decreases the duration of bronchoscopy and improves the PaO2 levels at the end of the procedure, but does not significantly impact the PaCO2, EtCO2, and mean arterial pressure.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier 1414374462@qq.com.

Continuous positive airway pressure is unsafe for radiofrequency ablation of lung cancer under sedation: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of a minimum continuous positive airway pressure of 4 cmH2O (CPAP + 4) during computed tomography (CT)-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for lung malignancies under procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, single-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label medical device conducted at a single tertiary university hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Forty-six patients over 18 years of age scheduled for CT-guided RFA of a malignant pulmonary tumour under PSA were randomised to receive either CPAP + 4 or a modified mask for placebo CPAP (Sham-CPAP). Exclusion criteria included contraindications for RFA, refusal to participate, inability to understand the procedure or tolerate the CPAP test, lung biopsy just prior to RFA, intercurrent diseases, or previous randomisation for additional pulmonary RFA. Primary outcomes were the percentage of patients reporting at least one serious adverse event (SAE), classification for complications from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE), and Clavien-Dindo classifications for complications, hospital stay, and readmissions. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), respiratory parameters, airway management, and the local radiological efficacy of pulmonary ablation.

RESULTS

CPAP + 4 prolonged hospital stay (1.5 ± 1.1 vs. 1.0 ± 0 inpatient nights, p = 0.022) and increased the risk of AE post-RFA (odds ratio (95% CI): 4.250 (1.234 to 14.637), p = 0.021 with more pneumothorax cases (n = 5/22, 22.7% vs. n = 0/24, 0%, p = 0.019). Per-protocol analysis revealed more SAEs and CIRSE grade 3 complications in the CPAP + 4 group (23.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.036). No significant differences were found in the effectiveness of oxygenation, ventilation, or pulmonary ablation.

CONCLUSION

CPAP is unsafe during CT-guided RFA for lung cancer under PSA even at the lowest pressure setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov, ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02117908, Registered 11 April 2014, https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/study/NCT02117908 CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study highlights the hazards of continuous positive airway pressure during radiofrequency ablation of lung cancer, even at minimal pressures, deeming it unsafe under procedural sedation and analgesia in pulmonary interventional procedures. Findings provide crucial insights to prioritise patient safety.

KEY POINTS

No prior randomised controlled trials on CPAP safety in percutaneous lung thermo-ablation. Standardised outcome measures are crucial for radiology research. CPAP during lung RFA raises hospital stay and the risk of complications. CPAP is unsafe during CT-guided RFA of lung cancer under procedural sedoanalgesia.

Oxygenation during Endobronchial Ultrasound: Where do we stand?

NONE

Personalized Noninvasive Respiratory Support in the Perioperative Setting: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Background: Noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), including high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT), noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), are routinely used in the perioperative period. Objectives: This narrative review provides an overview on the perioperative use of NRS. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative respiratory support is discussed, along with potential future areas of research. Results: During induction of anesthesia, in selected patients at high risk of difficult intubation, NIV is associated with improved gas exchange and reduced risk of postoperative respiratory complications. HFNOT demonstrated an improvement in oxygenation. Evidence on the intraoperative use of NRS is limited. Compared with conventional oxygenation, HFNOT is associated with a reduced risk of hypoxemia during procedural sedation, and recent data indicate a possible role for HFNOT for intraoperative apneic oxygenation in specific surgical contexts. After extubation, "preemptive" NIV and HFNOT in unselected cohorts do not affect clinical outcome. Postoperative "curative" NIV in high-risk patients and among those exhibiting signs of respiratory failure can reduce reintubation rate, especially after abdominal surgery. Data on postoperative "curative" HFNOT are limited. Conclusions: There is increasing evidence on the perioperative use of NRS. Use of NRS should be tailored based on the patient's specific characteristics and type of surgery, aimed at a personalized cost-effective approach.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy as an Adjuvant Therapy for Respiratory Support during Endoscopic Techniques: A Narrative Review

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a respiratory support technique that delivers a controlled concentration of oxygen with high flow, heat, and humidity via the nasal pathway. As it has many physiological effects, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications; however, there is limited guidance on using HFNC as a respiratory support tool during endoscopic procedures. We conducted a narrative review to evaluate the effect of HFNC as an adjuvant tool during fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB), upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy, and surgical procedures in adults. A search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases were performed. Approximately 384 publications were retrieved, and 99 were selected (93 original works and 6 case reports with a literature review). In patients who underwent FOB, HFNC appears to be superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in preventing hypoxaemia. In contrast, for gastrointestinal endoscopy, the current evidence is insufficient to recommend HFNC over COT in a cost-effective manner. Finally, in surgical procedures such as laryngeal microsurgery or thoracic surgery, HFNC has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to orotracheal intubation. As the results are heterogeneous, we advocate for the need for more quality studies to understand the effectiveness of HFNC during endoscopic procedures.

Efficay of high-flow nasal cannula in the paediatric population: A systematic evidence map

PROBLEM

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been widely used in paediatric medicine as a non-invasive ventilation mode for respiratory support. However, the differences in its efficacy across different diseases and intervention types remain poorly understood.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

An extensive literature search was performed across multiple academic databases to investigate the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of HFNC.

SAMPLE

This study included 35 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which collectively examined 355 randomised controlled trials and assessed 51 outcome indicators.

RESULTS

The findings suggest that the existing clinical research evidence predominantly supports the therapeutic efficacy of HFNC. Notably, there is a significant focus on treating acute lower respiratory infection, hypoxaemia, bronchiolitis, and respiratory distress syndrome following extubation. However, concerning the respiratory status, the existing clinical research evidence mainly demonstrates the therapeutic benefits in post-extubation respiratory support and primary respiratory support.

CONCLUSIONS

The research on HFNC has witnessed significant expansion, primarily focusing on respiratory disorders, post-extubation respiratory support, conscious sedation, and related fields. The evidence mapping provides a systematic and comprehensive overview of the available evidence on HFNC therapy in paediatric patients.

IMPLICATIONS

This study systematically and comprehensively assessed the clinical subjects and populations involved in HFNC therapy. Notably, this study analyzed the trends, current status, and evidence gaps of research, and furnished decision-makers and relevant researchers with a more comprehensive reference basis.

Clinical review of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in human and veterinary patients

Oxygen therapy is the first-line treatment for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. In veterinary medicine this has traditionally been provided via mask, low-flow nasal oxygen cannulas, oxygen cages and invasive positive pressure ventilation. Traditional non-invasive modalities are limited by the maximum flow rate and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) that can be delivered, variability in oxygen delivery and patient compliance. The invasive techniques are able to provide higher FiO₂ in a more predictable manner but are limited by sedation/anesthesia requirements, potential complications and cost. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) represents an alternative to conventional oxygen therapy. This modality delivers heated and humidified medical gas at adjustable flow rates, up to 60 L/min, and FiO₂, up to 100%, via nasal cannulas. It has been proposed that HFNOT improves pulmonary mechanics and reduces respiratory fatigue via reduction of anatomical dead space, provision of low-level positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), provision of constant FiO₂ at rates corresponding to patient requirements and through improved patient tolerance. Investigations into the use of HFNOT in veterinary patients have increased in frequency since its clinical use was first reported in dogs with acute respiratory failure in 2016. Current indications in dogs include acute respiratory failure associated with pulmonary parenchymal disease, upper airway obstruction and carbon monoxide intoxication. The use of HFNOT has also been advocated in certain conditions in cats and foals. HFNOT is also being used with increasing frequency in the treatment of a widening range of conditions in humans. Although there remains conflict regarding its use and efficacy in some patient groups, overall these reports indicate that HFNOT decreases breathing frequency and work of breathing and reduces the need for escalation of respiratory support. In addition, they provide insight into potential future veterinary applications. Complications of HFNOT have been rarely reported in humans and animals. These are usually self-limiting and typically result in lower morbidity and mortality than those associated with invasive ventilation techniques.