IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0316918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High-flow nasal cannula for pre- and apneic oxygenation during rapid sequence induction intubation in emergency surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hong Tang
  • Yanyan Yang
  • Hong Li

Abstract

Background: Rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII) is commonly used in emergency surgeries for patients at high risk of aspiration. However, these patients are more susceptible to hypoxemia during the RSII process. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has emerged as a potential alternative to traditional face mask (FM) ventilation pre- and apneic oxygenation. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of HFNC compared to FM during RSII in emergency surgeries. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed-MEDLINE, EMBASE-OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to July 20, 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing HFNC with FM during RSII for emergency surgery patients were included. The primary outcomes were post-intubation arterial partial pressures of oxygen (PaO2) and carbon dioxide (PaCO2). Secondary outcomes included post-intubation end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration (EtCO2), incidence of desaturation, apnea time, lowest peripheral oxygen saturation (Lowest SpO2), and occurrence of regurgitant aspiration. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool to evaluate risk of bias. Findings: This meta-analysis encompassed six studies, involving a total of 703 patients. HFNC oxygen therapy demonstrated a significant increase in post-intubation arterial PaO2 compared to FM (mean difference = 63.02 mmHg, 95% CI: 8.99 to 117.05, p = 0.02), while no significant difference was observed in arterial PaCO2. Moreover, HFNC substantially prolonged apnea time (mean difference = 19.25 seconds, 95% CI: 1.69 to 36.82, p = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found between HFNC and FM regarding EtCO2, incidence of desaturation, Lowest SpO2, or regurgitant aspiration. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that HFNC may be superior to FM for pre-oxygenation and apneic oxygenation during RSII in emergency surgeries, particularly in improving oxygenation. While these findings are promising, further high-quality research is necessary to establish definitive guidelines for HFNC use in this context.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong Tang & Yanyan Yang & Hong Li, 2025. "High-flow nasal cannula for pre- and apneic oxygenation during rapid sequence induction intubation in emergency surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0316918
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316918
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316918&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0316918?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0316918. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.