High flow nasal cannula for patients undergoing bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tools used to assess comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The aims were twofold: (a) to map tools documented in the literature to evaluate comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment; and (b) to assess if the retrieved tools have been validated for this purpose.

METHODS

A scoping review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In July 2023, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were consulted. Studies assessing comfort in adult, paediatric, and neonatal patients undergoing HFNC were included.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles were included, among which nine (12.2 %) investigated comfort as the primary aim. Twenty-five different tools were found, classifiable into 14 types, mostly unidimensional and originating from those measuring pain. The most widely used was the Visual Analogic Scale (n = 27, 35.6 %) followed by the Numerical Rating Scale (n = 11, 14.5 %) and less defined generic tools (n = 10, 13.2 %) with different metrics (e.g. 0-5, 0-10, 0-100). Only the General Comfort Questionnaire and the Comfort Scale were specifically validated for the assessment of comfort among adults and children, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although the comfort of patients undergoing HFNC is widely investigated in the literature, there is a scarcity of tools specifically validated in this field. Those used have been validated mainly to assess pain, suggesting the need to inform patients to prevent confusion while measuring comfort during HFNC and to develop more research in the field.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Comfort assessment is an important aspect of nursing care. Given the lack of validation studies in the field, efforts in research are recommended.

High flow oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in dogs and cats undergoing bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage: a pilot study

Objectives

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT), and to record SpO2 and desaturation episodes in dogs and cats receiving HFOT or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) during bronchoscopy ± bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL).

Materials and methods

Dogs and cats undergoing bronchoscopy ± BAL between January and May 2023 were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: HFOT (HFOT group; two cats and four dogs) and COT (COT group; one cat and five dogs). HFOT and COT were started at the beginning of the bronchoscopy. HFOT was delivered with a gas flow rate of 1 L/kg/min at an FiO2 of 100% and a temperature of 34°C (pediatric mode) or 37°C (adult mode). COT was delivered through the working channel of the bronchoscope at a rate of 1.5 L/min. The safety and feasibility of HFOT were assessed, and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry every 30 s throughout the procedure.

Measurements and main results

HFOT was feasible and safe in both dogs and cats with no complications reported. While there was no significant difference in the number of desaturation episodes (SpO2 < 94%) between the two groups, none of the patients in the HFOT group experienced severe desaturation (SpO2 < 90%). In contrast, two patients in the COT group had an SpO2 < 90%. Mean SpO2 was significantly higher in the HFOT group compared to the COT group at T0 (98% ± 2% vs. 94 ± 2%), T0.5 (98% ± 2% vs. 94% ± 3%) and T1 (98% ± 2% vs. 94% ± 4%).

Conclusion

To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest study conducted to date using HFOT during bronchoscopy in dogs and cats. Our results suggest that HFOT is feasible and safe during bronchoscopy ± BAL. Furthermore, HFOT may reduce the risk of desaturation episodes in dogs and cats undergoing bronchoscopy and BAL.

Bolus administration of remimazolam was superior to midazolam for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To date, there is no standardized practice for the use of pharmacological sedatives during flexible bronchoscopy, particularly for elderly patients. This exploratory study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of remimazolam at a single induced dose for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy (DFB), and compare with midazolam, a commonly used sedative.

METHODS

A total of 100 elderly patients (age range 65-80 yr; American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-III) undergoing DFB were randomly allocated into 2 groups according to the sedatives used for induction: the remimazolam group and the midazolam group. Sedation induction was initiated by an intravenous bolus of remimazolam (0.135 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.045 mg/kg), respectively, both groups were combined with a high-dose of alfentanil (18 µg/kg), and supplemented with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen supply at a flow rate of 45 L/min. If the target depth of sedation was not achieved, propofol would be titrated as a rescue. The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation at a single induced dose to achieve target depth (Ramsay sedation score [RSS] = 4) during induction, intraoperative changes in vital signs, postoperative follow-up situation and incidence of post-bronchoscopy adverse events were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The success rate of sedation in the remimazolam group was significantly higher than that in the midazolam group (65.2% vs 39.6%, P = .013), while the incidence of extra sleep within 6 hours after procedure was lower in the remimazolam group as compared to the midazolam group (10.9% vs 31.3%, P = .016). No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding hemodynamic fluctuations, incidence of hypoxemia, and cough response during the procedure, as well as postoperative recall, willingness to undergo reexamination, and other post-bronchoscopy adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Bolus administration of remimazolam offers advantages over midazolam for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing DFB, in terms of a higher success rate of sedation and a lower incidence of extra sleep within 6 hours after procedure, though the safety profiles of both groups were favorable.

High-flow nasal cannula use in pediatric patients for other indications than acute bronchiolitis-a scoping review of randomized controlled trials

The objective of the study is to summarize current literature on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use for different indications in pediatric patient excluding acute bronchiolitis and neonatal care. The study design is a systematic scoping review. Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in February, 2023. All abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers. Randomized controlled trials focusing on HFNC use in pediatric patients (age < 18 years) were included. Studies focusing on acute bronchiolitis and neonatal respiratory conditions were excluded. Study quality was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The main outcomes are patient groups and indications, key outcomes, and risk of bias. After screening 1276 abstracts, we included 22 full reports. Risk of bias was low in 11 and high in 5 studies. We identified three patient groups where HFNC has been studied: first, children requiring primary respiratory support for acute respiratory failure; second, perioperative use for either intraprocedural oxygenation or postoperative respiratory support; and third, post-extubation care in pediatric intensive care for other than postoperative patients. Clinical and laboratory parameters were assessed as key outcomes. None of the studies analyzed cost-effectiveness.Conclusion: This systematic scoping review provides an overview of current evidence for HFNC use in pediatric patients. Future studies should aim for better quality and include economic evaluation with cost-effectiveness analysis.Protocol registration: Protocol has been published https://osf.io/a3y46/ .

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Machine learning-based risk prediction of hypoxemia for outpatients undergoing sedation colonoscopy: a practical clinical tool

OBJECTIVES

Hypoxemia as a common complication in colonoscopy under sedation and may result in serious consequences. Unfortunately, a hypoxemia prediction model for outpatient colonoscopy has not been developed. Consequently, the objective of our study was to develop a practical and accurate model to predict the risk of hypoxemia in outpatient colonoscopy under sedation.

METHODS

In this study, we included patients who received colonoscopy with anesthesia in Nanjing First Hospital from July to September 2021. Risk factors were selected through the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Prediction models based on logistic regression (LR), random forest classifier (RFC), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machine (SVM), and stacking classifier (SCLF) model were implemented and assessed by standard metrics such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity and specificity. Then choose the best model to develop an online tool for clinical use.

RESULTS

We ultimately included 839 patients. After LASSO, body mass index (BMI) (coefficient = 0.36), obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) (coefficient = 1.32), basal oxygen saturation (coefficient = -0.14), and remifentanil dosage (coefficient = 0.04) were independent risk factors for hypoxemia. The XGBoost model with an AUROC of 0.913 showed the best performance among the five models.

CONCLUSION

Our study selected the XGBoost as the first model especially for colonoscopy, with over 95% accuracy and excellent specificity. The XGBoost includes four variables that can be quickly obtained. Moreover, an online prediction practical tool has been provided, which helps screen high-risk outpatients with hypoxemia swiftly and conveniently.

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.