High Flow Nasal Oxygen and Low Flow Oxygen Are Equally Effective in Providing Oxygenation During Bronchoscopy Under Conscious Sedation: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Georgia Burton, Paul Kelly, Brooke Carroll, Chris Frampton, Lutz Beckert
{"title":"High Flow Nasal Oxygen and Low Flow Oxygen Are Equally Effective in Providing Oxygenation During Bronchoscopy Under Conscious Sedation: A Randomised Controlled Trial.","authors":"Georgia Burton, Paul Kelly, Brooke Carroll, Chris Frampton, Lutz Beckert","doi":"10.1111/resp.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Oxygen desaturations and hypoxaemia are common during bronchoscopy despite the use of conventional low flow oxygen (LFO). Some researchers suggest high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) may improve oxygenation in patients undergoing bronchoscopy; however, trials have varied widely in their methodology and patient population. Evidence of use in a broad patient cohort and assessment of other important considerations, including clinician/patient satisfaction, is lacking. We hypothesised that HFNO during bronchoscopy and EBUS would reduce desaturations/hypoxaemia, oxygen titrations, respiratory rate, and cough frequency when compared to LFO. We also explored clinician and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy or EBUS with conscious sedation were randomised to receive LFO or HFNO. Data was collected via physiological monitoring devices, health records, and clinician/patient questions. The primary outcome was time spent with SpO<sub>2</sub> < 90%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 121 participants were included. There was no difference in oxygenation and desaturations between LFO (n = 61) and HFNO (n = 60) in all procedures. This was also observed within the separate strata of bronchoscopy (n = 75) and EBUS (n = 46). HFNO reduced the respiratory rate in EBUS procedures (p < 0.05). The clinician satisfaction score was higher with HFNO in bronchoscopy procedures (p < 0.05). The requirement for oxygen titrations was lower with HFNO, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in cough frequency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LFO and HFNO were equally effective in maintaining oxygenation during bronchoscopy and EBUS in our population. HFNO had higher clinician satisfaction during bronchoscopy and may have a physiological advantage during EBUS as demonstrated by a lower respiratory rate.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ANZCTRN12623001262695.</p>","PeriodicalId":21129,"journal":{"name":"Respirology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respirology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.70051","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objective: Oxygen desaturations and hypoxaemia are common during bronchoscopy despite the use of conventional low flow oxygen (LFO). Some researchers suggest high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) may improve oxygenation in patients undergoing bronchoscopy; however, trials have varied widely in their methodology and patient population. Evidence of use in a broad patient cohort and assessment of other important considerations, including clinician/patient satisfaction, is lacking. We hypothesised that HFNO during bronchoscopy and EBUS would reduce desaturations/hypoxaemia, oxygen titrations, respiratory rate, and cough frequency when compared to LFO. We also explored clinician and patient satisfaction.
Methods: Participants undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy or EBUS with conscious sedation were randomised to receive LFO or HFNO. Data was collected via physiological monitoring devices, health records, and clinician/patient questions. The primary outcome was time spent with SpO2 < 90%.
Results: A total of 121 participants were included. There was no difference in oxygenation and desaturations between LFO (n = 61) and HFNO (n = 60) in all procedures. This was also observed within the separate strata of bronchoscopy (n = 75) and EBUS (n = 46). HFNO reduced the respiratory rate in EBUS procedures (p < 0.05). The clinician satisfaction score was higher with HFNO in bronchoscopy procedures (p < 0.05). The requirement for oxygen titrations was lower with HFNO, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in cough frequency.
Conclusion: LFO and HFNO were equally effective in maintaining oxygenation during bronchoscopy and EBUS in our population. HFNO had higher clinician satisfaction during bronchoscopy and may have a physiological advantage during EBUS as demonstrated by a lower respiratory rate.
期刊介绍：
Respirology is a journal of international standing, publishing peer-reviewed articles of scientific excellence in clinical and clinically-relevant experimental respiratory biology and disease. Fields of research include immunology, intensive and critical care, epidemiology, cell and molecular biology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, paediatric respiratory medicine, clinical trials, interventional pulmonology and thoracic surgery.
The Journal aims to encourage the international exchange of results and publishes papers in the following categories: Original Articles, Editorials, Reviews, and Correspondences.
Respirology is the preferred journal of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, has been adopted as the preferred English journal of the Japanese Respiratory Society and the Taiwan Society of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and is an official journal of the World Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
