High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and the Risk of Gastric Insufflation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Supplemented by Narrative Synthesis.

Venkatesan Thiruvenkatarajan,Jellsingh Jeyadoss,Philip Harford,Minsu Kim,Ashok Kumar Jayaraj
{"title":"High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and the Risk of Gastric Insufflation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Supplemented by Narrative Synthesis.","authors":"Venkatesan Thiruvenkatarajan,Jellsingh Jeyadoss,Philip Harford,Minsu Kim,Ashok Kumar Jayaraj","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000008005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) generates positive airway pressure, raising concerns about gastric insufflation and aspiration risk. Although most studies report minimal or no gastric distension, some suggest significant changes. This systematic review and meta-analysis applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to evaluate the effect of HFNO on gastric insufflation and related markers across clinical settings. We searched Medline, Embase, Emcare, and CINAHL through August 2025 for studies reporting qualitative or quantitative markers of gastric insufflation during HFNO use, including comet-tail artifacts, antral cross-sectional area, and gastric volume. Eligible designs included randomized trials, observational and volunteer studies, and case reports. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes reported in two or more studies. Six randomized trials, five observational studies, two volunteer studies, one case series, and two case reports were included. Observational studies primarily assessed outcomes before and after HFNO intervention. Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 375) showed HFNO significantly reduced gastric insufflation compared with face-mask ventilation during elective peri-intubation (risk ratios [RR] = 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.52; P < .00001; I2 = 0%), rated moderate-certainty. For antral cross-sectional area, pooled analysis of three RCTs (n = 318) found no significant difference between HFNO and face-mask ventilation (MD -0.33 cm2; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.05; P = .09; I2 = 74%), rated moderate-certainty. Observational studies assessing pre- and post-HFNO changes showed no significant increase in antral cross-sectional area (MD 0.08 cm2; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.45; P = .67; I2 = 0%) and no significant change in gastric liquid volume (MD -0.01 ml/kg; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.06; P = .80; I2 = 0%), both rated low certainty. Nonpooled data suggested possible increases in critically ill patients, but the evidence was of very low certainty. A single study assessing microaspiration found HFNO reduced gastroesophageal reflux and prevented microaspiration compared with face-mask ventilation. No clinically significant aspiration events were reported across studies. Moderate-certainty evidence supports HFNO as safe regarding gastric insufflation and antral cross-sectional area in most elective and procedural contexts. Low-certainty evidence suggests no increase in gastric volume. Caution is warranted due to limited, low-to-very-low-certainty evidence at higher flow rates and among critically ill patients. Larger multicenter trials and robust observational studies are necessary to confirm safety in these settings.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"87 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000008005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) generates positive airway pressure, raising concerns about gastric insufflation and aspiration risk. Although most studies report minimal or no gastric distension, some suggest significant changes. This systematic review and meta-analysis applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to evaluate the effect of HFNO on gastric insufflation and related markers across clinical settings. We searched Medline, Embase, Emcare, and CINAHL through August 2025 for studies reporting qualitative or quantitative markers of gastric insufflation during HFNO use, including comet-tail artifacts, antral cross-sectional area, and gastric volume. Eligible designs included randomized trials, observational and volunteer studies, and case reports. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes reported in two or more studies. Six randomized trials, five observational studies, two volunteer studies, one case series, and two case reports were included. Observational studies primarily assessed outcomes before and after HFNO intervention. Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 375) showed HFNO significantly reduced gastric insufflation compared with face-mask ventilation during elective peri-intubation (risk ratios [RR] = 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.52; P < .00001; I2 = 0%), rated moderate-certainty. For antral cross-sectional area, pooled analysis of three RCTs (n = 318) found no significant difference between HFNO and face-mask ventilation (MD -0.33 cm2; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.05; P = .09; I2 = 74%), rated moderate-certainty. Observational studies assessing pre- and post-HFNO changes showed no significant increase in antral cross-sectional area (MD 0.08 cm2; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.45; P = .67; I2 = 0%) and no significant change in gastric liquid volume (MD -0.01 ml/kg; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.06; P = .80; I2 = 0%), both rated low certainty. Nonpooled data suggested possible increases in critically ill patients, but the evidence was of very low certainty. A single study assessing microaspiration found HFNO reduced gastroesophageal reflux and prevented microaspiration compared with face-mask ventilation. No clinically significant aspiration events were reported across studies. Moderate-certainty evidence supports HFNO as safe regarding gastric insufflation and antral cross-sectional area in most elective and procedural contexts. Low-certainty evidence suggests no increase in gastric volume. Caution is warranted due to limited, low-to-very-low-certainty evidence at higher flow rates and among critically ill patients. Larger multicenter trials and robust observational studies are necessary to confirm safety in these settings.
高流量鼻氧与胃内灌气的风险:一项系统综述和meta分析,并辅以叙事综合。
高流量鼻氧(HFNO)产生气道正压,增加了对胃注气和误吸风险的担忧。虽然大多数研究报告轻微或没有胃胀,但一些研究表明有显著变化。本系统综述和荟萃分析采用分级推荐评估、发展和评价(GRADE)框架来评估HFNO对胃灌胃和相关临床指标的影响。我们检索了Medline、Embase、Emcare和CINAHL,检索了截至2025年8月的报告HFNO使用期间胃内注入的定性或定量标记物的研究,包括彗星尾伪像、胃窦横截面积和胃容积。符合条件的设计包括随机试验、观察性研究和志愿者研究以及病例报告。采用混合方法评价工具评价方法学质量,证据的确定性用GRADE评定。对两项或两项以上研究报告的结果进行meta分析。包括6个随机试验,5个观察性研究,2个志愿者研究,1个病例系列和2个病例报告。观察性研究主要评估HFNO干预前后的结果。4项随机对照试验(rct, n = 375)的合并分析显示,与面罩通气相比,HFNO可显著减少择期围插管期间的胃灌气(风险比[RR] = 0.32; 95%可信区间[CI], 0.19-0.52; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%),评级为中等确定性。对于心房横截面积,3个随机对照试验(n = 318)的合并分析发现,HFNO和面罩通气之间无显著差异(MD -0.33 cm2; 95% CI, -0.72至0.05;P = 0.09; I2 = 74%),被评为中度确定性。评估hfno前后变化的观察性研究显示,胃窦横断面积无显著增加(MD 0.08 cm2; 95% CI, -0.29至0.45;P = 0.67; I2 = 0%),胃液量无显著变化(MD -0.01 ml/kg; 95% CI, -0.07至0.06;P = 0.80; I2 = 0%),均被评为低确定性。非汇总数据表明危重患者可能增加,但证据的确定性非常低。一项评估微吸的单一研究发现,与面罩通气相比,HFNO可减少胃食管反流并防止微吸。所有研究均未报告有临床意义的误吸事件。中等确定性的证据支持HFNO在大多数选择性和程序性情况下对胃注入和胃窦横截面积是安全的。低确定性证据显示胃容量未增加。在高流速和危重患者中,由于有限的、低至极低确定性的证据,需要谨慎。需要更大规模的多中心试验和强有力的观察性研究来确认这些环境中的安全性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书