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

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Shuailei Wang (MD) , Jiaming Ji (MD) , Chang Xiong (MD) , Weilong Zhong (MD) , Liping Li (MD) , Shengyuan Gong (MD) , Jiamei Lu (MD) , Ziqing Hei (MD) , Weifeng Yao (MD) , Chaojin Chen (MD)
{"title":"Comparing oxygen therapies for hypoxemia prevention during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis","authors":"Shuailei Wang (MD) ,&nbsp;Jiaming Ji (MD) ,&nbsp;Chang Xiong (MD) ,&nbsp;Weilong Zhong (MD) ,&nbsp;Liping Li (MD) ,&nbsp;Shengyuan Gong (MD) ,&nbsp;Jiamei Lu (MD) ,&nbsp;Ziqing Hei (MD) ,&nbsp;Weifeng Yao (MD) ,&nbsp;Chaojin Chen (MD)","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><p>Hypoxemia is the most frequent adverse event observed during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation. An optimum oxygen therapy has still not been conclusively determined.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Digestive Endoscopy Center.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>Adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) during gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Pubmed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and <span><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>. 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.</p></div><div><h3>Measurement</h3><p>The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as the pulse oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>). 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.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>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 <em>vs.</em> NC, OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08–0.31, 95% PrI: 0.06–0.41), followed by Wei nasal jet tube (WNJT) (WNJT <em>vs.</em> 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 &gt; WNJT &gt; oropharynx/nasopharyngeal catheter &gt; high-flow nasal oxygenation &gt; nasal mask &gt; NC.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"98 ","pages":"Article 111586"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

比较在程序性镇静下进行消化内镜检查时预防低氧血症的氧气疗法:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
研究目的:低氧血症是在手术镇静状态下进行消化内镜检查时最常见的不良反应。最佳的氧气疗法尚未最终确定:设计:随机临床试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析:消化内镜中心:成人(≥18 岁,男女不限)在程序性镇静下进行消化内镜检查:截至 2023 年 6 月 30 日,对 Pubmed、MEDLINE、Web of Science、Embase 和 Clinicaltrials.gov 进行了检索。纳入的随机临床试验(RCT)比较了任何氧气疗法与另一种氧气疗法或安慰剂(鼻插管,NC):主要结果是低氧血症的发生率,定义为脉搏氧饱和度(SpO2)。进行了随机效应网络荟萃分析。数据以几率比(OR)、预测区间(PrI)和 95% CI 的形式报告。偏倚风险按照 Cochrane 协作组织的指导方针进行评估。证据质量通过建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架进行评估:主要结果:我们纳入了 27 项 RCT,共计 7552 名患者。与使用 NC 相比,无创正压通气(NIPPV)在缓解低氧血症方面的疗效更佳(NIPPV vs. NC,OR = 0.16,95% CI:0.08-0.31,95% PrI:0.06-0.41),其次是魏氏鼻喷射管(WNJT)(WNJT vs. NC,OR = 0.17,95% CI:0.10-0.30,95% PrI:0.07-0.42)。预防低氧血症的效果排名如下:NIPPV>WNJT>口咽/鼻咽导管>高流量鼻氧合>鼻罩>NC:结论:在手术镇静状态下进行胃肠道内窥镜检查时,发现所有其他先进的氧疗方法都比鼻导管更有效。NIPPV 和 WNJT 似乎是预防低氧血症最有效的氧气疗法。此外,临床医生应根据风险人群、内窥镜检查类型和不良事件来选择最合适的氧疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained. The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信