Efficacy and Safety of Supraglottic Jet Oxygenation and Ventilation to Minimize Sedation-related Hypoxemia: a Meta-analysis with GRADE Approach

Overview

Journal Syst Rev

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2024 Nov 15

PMID 39543705

Authors

I-Wen Chen

Wei-Ting Wang

Pei-Chun Lai

Chun-Ning Ho

Chien-Ming Lin

Yao-Tsung Lin

Yen-Ta Huang

Kuo-Chuan Hung

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Hypoxemia is a common complication of sedation. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) in preventing hypoxemia during sedative procedures.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SJOV with conventional oxygen therapy in sedated patients were searched in five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], and Google Scholar) from their inception to March 2024. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who developed hypoxia (SpO < 90%). The secondary outcomes included subclinical respiratory depression (90% ≤ SpO < 95%), severe hypoxemia (SpO < 75%), airway interventions, adverse events, hemodynamics, propofol dosage, and procedure time. The certainty of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results: Twelve trials (n = 3058) were included in the analysis. The evidence suggests that SJOV results in a large reduction in the risk of hypoxemia (risk ratio [RR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.36; low certainty) and subclinical respiratory depression (RR, 0.40; low certainty) compared with the control. SJOV likely resulted in a large reduction in the risk of severe hypoxemia (RR, 0.22; moderate certainty). In addition, it may result in a large reduction in the need for jaw lift (RR, 0.22; low certainty) and mask ventilation (RR, 0.13; low certainty). The risk of sore throat probably increases with SJOV (RR, 1.71; moderate certainty), whereas SJOV may result in little to no difference in nasal bleeding (RR, 1.75; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of SJOV on hemodynamics (very low certainty) and procedure time (very low certainty). SJOV probably resulted in little to no difference in sedative doses between the groups (moderate certainty).

Conclusion: According to the GRADE approach, SJOV likely results in a large reduction in the risk of severe hypoxemia but probably increases the risk of sore throat. Compared with the control, evidence suggests that SJOV results in a large reduction in the risk of hypoxemia, subclinical respiratory depression, and the need for airway manipulation, with little to no difference in nasal bleeding. The integration of SJOV into clinical practice may help minimize hypoxemic events in at-risk patients.

References

MacKenzie N, Grant I . Propofol for intravenous sedation. Anaesthesia. 1987; 42(1):3-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1987.tb02936.x. View

Park C, Park S, Hyun B, Lee J, Kae S, Jang H . Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 87(1):174-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.05.050. View

Goudra B, Nuzat A, Singh P, Gouda G, Carlin A, Manjunath A . Cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A retrospective analysis of 73,029 procedures. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21(6):400-11. PMC: 4707810. DOI: 10.4103/1319-3767.164202. View

Hung K, Chen J, Wu S, Huang P, Wu J, Liu T . A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation. Front Pharmacol. 2023; 14:1225288. PMC: 10561285. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1225288. View

Zha B, Wu Z, Xie P, Xiong H, Xu L, Wei H . Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation reduces desaturation during bronchoscopy under moderate to deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil: A randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020; 38(3):294-301. PMC: 7932749. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001401. View

Yang Z, Meng Q, Xu Y, Wang J, Yu D, Wei H . Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation during colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care: a controlled randomized clinical trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016; 20(6):1168-73. View

Sterne J, Savovic J, Page M, Elbers R, Blencowe N, Boutron I . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366:l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. View

Qin Y, Li L, Zhang X, Wei Y, Wang Y, Wei H . Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation enhances oxygenation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients sedated with propofol: a randomized multicentre clinical trial. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 119(1):158-166. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex091. View

Liang H, Hou Y, Wei H, Feng Y . Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation assisted fiberoptic intubation in a paralyzed patient with morbid obesity and obstructive sleep apnea: a case report. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019; 19(1):40. PMC: 6425646. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-019-0709-7. View

10.

Liu F, Cheng X, Wang Y, Li K, Peng T, Fang N . Effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A bi-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Front Pharmacol. 2023; 14:1131391. PMC: 10151819. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1131391. View

11.

Ravindran S, Bassett P, Shaw T, Dron M, Broughton R, Johnston D . National census of UK endoscopy services in 2019. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2021; 12(6):451-460. PMC: 8515281. DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2020-101538. View

12.

Hung K, Ko C, Chang P, Wang K, Teng I, Lin C . Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation against peri- and post-procedural hypoxemia in patients with obesity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):6448. PMC: 9018711. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10396-5. View

13.

Duggan L, Ballantyne Scott B, Law J, Morris I, Murphy M, Griesdale D . Transtracheal jet ventilation in the 'can't intubate can't oxygenate' emergency: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2016; 117 Suppl 1:i28-i38. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew192. View

14.

Sharif S, Kang J, Sadeghirad B, Rizvi F, Forestell B, Greer A . Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. Br J Anaesth. 2024; 132(3):491-506. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.11.050. View

15.

Hung K, Chang Y, Chen I, Soong T, Ho C, Hsing C . Efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation against hypoxemia in sedated patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2022; 77:110651. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110651. View

16.

Huang X, Lin F, Chen Q, Hu X . Safety and efficacy of the combination of esketamine and propofol in procedural sedation/analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2023; 89(7-8):680-689. DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17100-8. View

17.

Nurminen N, Jarvinen T, Robinson E, Zhou N, Salo S, Rasanen J . Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy procedure volume trends, perioperative mortality, and malpractice claims: Population-based analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2024; 12(3):E385-E393. PMC: 10948266. DOI: 10.1055/a-2265-8757. View

18.

Thiruvenkatarajan V, Sekhar V, Wong D, Currie J, van Wijk R, Ludbrook G . Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on hypoxaemia during procedural sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2022; 78(1):81-92. PMC: 10087848. DOI: 10.1111/anae.15845. View

19.

Esmaillian M, Kouhestani S, Azizkhani R, Heydari F, Safavi M . Dexmedetomidine versus propofol: An effective combination with ketamine for adult procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2023; 73():95-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.08.025. View

20.

van Schaik E, Blankman P, van Klei W, Knape H, Vaessen P, Braithwaite S . Hypoxemia during procedural sedation in adult patients: a retrospective observational study. Can J Anaesth. 2021; 68(9):1349-1357. PMC: 8376691. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-021-01992-6. View