The effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula during sedated digestive endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Studies evaluating the role of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in sedated digestive endoscopy have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of HFNC in patients undergoing digestive endoscopy procedures under sedation. Methods PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, were searched from inception to 31 July 2021. Only randomized clinical trials comparing HFNC with standard nasal cannula oxygen (SNC) during sedated digestive endoscopy were included. The incidence of hypoxemia was the primary outcome, and the secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who needed airway interventions. Results Seven studies that enrolled 2998 patients were included. When compared to SNC, HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in hypoxemia incidence (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.64) and airway intervention requirements (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.69), with both high heterogeneity (I2 = 81% and 94%). In subgroup analysis, when hypoxemia was defined as pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 90%, low risk of hypoxemia subjects who received HFNC were associated with a significant reduction in hypoxemia incidence (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.07; heterogeneity I2 = 39%) and airway intervention requirements (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04; heterogeneity I2 = 15%). However, in the high risk of hypoxemia subjects, there were no significant differences between the two oxygen administration techniques in both primary (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; heterogeneity I2 = 0%) and secondary outcomes (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.59; heterogeneity I2 = 0%). Conclusions Compared to SNC, HFNC not only reduce the incidence of hypoxemia but also reduce the requirements for airway interventions during sedated digestive endoscopy procedures, especially in patients at low risk for hypoxemia. In high risk of hypoxemia patients, there were no significant differences between the two oxygen administration techniques. Trial registration PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews on 28 July 2021, registration no. CRD42021264556.