MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046280135 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000005073

The Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen During the Intraoperative Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3046280135 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Spence, Wesley Rajaleelan, Jean Wong, Frances Chung, David T. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaConfidence intervalHypoxemiaOxygenationIntubationSedationApneaRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is increasingly being used in intensive care units for management of hypoxemia and respiratory failure. However, the effectiveness of HFNO for preventing hypoxemia in the intraoperative period is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare patient oxygenation and end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2), between HFNO and conventional oxygenation, during the intraoperative period in surgical patients. METHODS: Standard databases were searched from inception to February 2020. Studies involving intraoperative use of HFNO with 1 of the 4 outcomes: (1) oxygen (O2) desaturation, (2) minimum O2 saturation, (3) safe apnea time, or (4) EtCO2 were included. Intraoperative period was divided into 2 phases: at induction with general anesthesia and during surgical procedure under sedation without tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 4 induction, 4 procedure, 2314 patients) were included for systematic review and meta-analyses. We found the risk of intraoperative O2 desaturation was lower in HFNO versus conventional oxygenation control group; at induction with an odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval [CI]) of 0.06 (0.01-0.59, P = .02), and during procedure, OR (95% CI) of 0.09 (0.05-0.18; P < .001). The minimum O2 saturation was higher in HFNO versus conventional oxygenation; at induction by a mean difference (MD) (95% CI) of 5.1% (3.3-6.9; P < .001), and during procedure, by a MD (95% CI) of 4.0% (1.8-6.2; P < .001). Safe apnea time at induction was longer in HFNO versus conventional oxygenation by a MD (95% CI) of 33.4 seconds (16.8-50.1; P < .001). EtCO2 at induction was not significantly different between HFNO and conventional oxygenation groups. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that, in the intraoperative setting, HFNO compared to conventional oxygenation reduces the risk of O2 desaturation, increases minimum O2 saturation, and safe apnea time. HFNO should be considered for anesthesia induction and during surgical procedures under sedation without tracheal intubation in patients at higher risk of hypoxemia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207