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

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 (I(2) = 81% and 94%). In subgroup analysis, when hypoxemia was defined as pulse oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) < 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 I(2) = 39%) and airway intervention requirements (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04; heterogeneity I(2) = 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 I(2) = 0%) and secondary outcomes (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.59; heterogeneity I(2) = 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40001-022-00661-8.