Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2025
Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygenation and standard low-flow nasal oxygenation during rigid bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy with versus without bronchoscopic guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Facemask on Arterial Oxygenation During Liver Radiofrequency Ablation: Randomized Controlled Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Trial
- Application of high-flow nasal oxygen during anesthesia induction for frame-based stereoelectroencephalography: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- High-flow nasal oxygenation: a transformative tool in airway management.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) in improving oxygenation is influenced by several factors, and its effectiveness is not always guaranteed. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of HFNO and standard low-flow nasal oxygenation during rigid bronchoscopy in the apneic patients.
methodsAll patients were administered general anesthesia with full muscle relaxation and were randomly assigned to receive either HFNO (HFNO group) or standard low-flow oxygenation (Standard group). The study endpoints included the lowest peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), hypoxemia-related surgical interruptions (SpO2 ≤ 94%), and changes in arterial oxygen tension (PaO2) and carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) during the apnea period for rigid bronchoscopy.
resultsA total of 53 patients completed the study. No significant differences were found between the HFNO and the Standard groups in the lowest SpO2 levels (median [Q1, Q3]; 99 [98, 100]% vs. 98 [94, 100]%, P = 0.059) and in the increase rate of PaCO2 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]; 1.6 ± 0.7 mmHg/min vs. 2.0 ± 0.8 mmHg/min, P = 0.064). However, the HFNO group had fewer patients with hypoxemia-related surgical interruptions than the Standard group (1 [3.8%] vs. 8 [29.6%], P = 0.024) and exhibited an attenuated decline rate in PaO2 (median [Q1, Q3]: 4.6 [0.0, 7.9] mmHg/min vs. 10.5 [6.4, 12.9] mmHg/min, P = 0.005).
conclusionsWhile HFNO did not enhance the lowest SpO2 levels in comparison with standard low-flow oxygenation, it did reduce hypoxemia-related surgical interruptions with an attenuated decline in PaO2. Therefore, HFNO has considerable clinical efficacy for rigid bronchoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.