Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 41785478

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

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; I 2 = 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 cm 2 ; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.05; P = .09; I 2 = 74%), rated moderate-certainty. Observational studies assessing pre- and post-HFNO changes showed no significant increase in antral cross-sectional area (MD 0.08 cm 2 ; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.45; P = .67; I 2 = 0%) and no significant change in gastric liquid volume (MD -0.01 ml/kg; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.06; P = .80; I 2 = 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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Venkatesan Thiruvenkatarajan, Jellsingh Jeyadoss, Philip Harford, Minsu Kim, Ashok Kumar Jayaraj. 2026-03-04. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and the Risk of Gastric Insufflation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Supplemented by Narrative Synthesis.. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000008005

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Non-Invasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the management of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in the emergency department (ED). A comprehensive search of relevant sources was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing adult patients (&#x2265;&#x2009;18&#x2009;years) treated in the ED for ARF and comparing HFNO to COT/NIV were included. The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation (IMV). Secondary outcomes included physiological and biochemical parameters, ICU admission, hospital length of stay, dyspnoea scores and mortality. A total of 17 RCTs (1955 patients) were included. There was a significant reduction in IMV favouring the HFNO group compared to COT and NIV (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88). HFNO showed significant improvements in RR, SpO2, PaO2 and Modified Borg Dyspnoea Scale. Subgroup analysis showed reduced rates of IMV with HFNO compared to COT (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.91), but not compared to NIV (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.42-1.14). HFNO additionally showed a reduction of IMV compared to NIV and COT in undifferentiated patients (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.93), but not in exacerbations of COPD or acute heart failure. Ten of the 17 studies had at least some concern for risk of bias, with several analyses having notable heterogeneity. HFNO showed a significant reduction in rates of IMV, improvement in peripheral oxygen saturations, PaO2, respiratory rate and patient dyspnoea scores compared to COT and NIV.

Humans

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation in sedated endoscopy for high-risk obstructive sleep apnea patients: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxemia is the most common adverse event during sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients with high obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) risk (STOP-Bang &#x2265;5) are susceptible due to sedation-induced loss of upper airway tone exacerbating airway collapsibility. Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) benefits general at-risk populations, its efficacy in this specific cohort remains uncertain, as its mild positive pressure falls far below therapeutic continuous positive airway pressure levels for moderate-to-severe OSA, questioning its ability to stent the collapsible airway. Our prior proof-of-concept study in this cohort observed a 5% incidence of hypoxemia with HFNC, confirming feasibility and safety and justifying this confirmatory trial. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled single-blind trial will enroll 600 adults (STOP-Bang score &#x2265;5) undergoing elective sedated gastroenteroscopy across three centers. Participants will be 1:1 randomized (stratified by center) to HFNC (30&#x2009;L/min pre-oxygenation, 60&#x2009;L/min post-induction) or conventional nasal cannula (6&#x2009;L/min). Both groups receive standardized propofol-alfentanil sedation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with at least one episode of hypoxemia (SpO2 75%-90% <60&#x2009;s). Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with at least one episode of severe hypoxemia (SpO2 <75% or 75%&#x2264;SpO2<90% &#x2265;60&#x2009;s), the proportion with subclinical respiratory depression (90%&#x2264;SpO2<95%), and the frequency of other adverse events. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on HFNC's efficacy in high-risk OSA patients, addressing whether it can overcome pressure limitations to prevent hypoxemia. Results are expected to inform sedation management guidelines, establish a new standard of care for this subgroup, and enhance procedural safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 December 2025 (NCT07307560).

Humans

Randomised, Multicentre Clinical Trial Found That Hypertonic Saline Did Not Reduce the Length of Stay of Hospitalised Patients With Acute Bronchiolitis.

AIM: Bronchiolitis is a major cause of hospitalisation in young children, but the effectiveness of inhaled hypertonic saline remains unclear. We compared treating hospitalised infants with nebulised hypertonic saline or normal saline. METHOD: This multisite, double-blind RCT was conducted from 1 October 2023 to 1 April 2025 in four Polish paediatric units. Children from 5&#x2009;weeks to 24&#x2009;months, who had been hospitalised with mild-to-moderate bronchiolitis, were randomly assigned to receive nebulised 3% hypertonic saline or 0.9% normal saline until discharge. They were followed for 7&#x2009;days. RESULTS: The study comprised 181 children (55% male) with a mean age of 8.3&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;6.3&#x2009;months: 90 were randomised to hypertonic saline and 91 to normal saline. The median hospital stay was 2.68 (1.92-4.03) days in the hypertonic saline group and 2.79 (1.8-3.96) days in the normal saline group. The mean difference was -0.11&#x2009;days (95% confidence interval -0.73 to 0.12, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.3). No differences were observed in clinical severity scores between the groups. Readmissions only occurred in the normal saline group (5.9%). CONCLUSION: Hypertonic saline inhalation did not reduce the length of hospital stay or improve clinical severity scores in hospitalised children with bronchiolitis, but it was associated with a lower risk of rehospitalisation.

Humans