ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2024
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients undergoing bronchoscopy: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The safety and efficacy of two different airway management methods for patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- The Role of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) During Flexible Bronchoscopy in Adult Patients with Moderate Respiratory Dysfunctions: An Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- High-flow nasal oxygen therapy via a single-prong cannula interface during bronchoscopy in patients with acute respiratory failure: a two-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Clinical observations of high-flow nasal cannula oxygenation in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a randomized controlled study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients undergoing bronchoscopy, particularly those with pre-existing hypoxemia, face a significant risk of further deterioration in their oxygen saturation levels. This heightened risk necessitates the provision of supplemental oxygen therapy throughout the procedure, rendering it mandatory. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been widely employed in the management of hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) in adults. Based on this, HFNC has been used in endoscopic procedures, but there are still few studies on HFNC in fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of HFNC with nasal cannula oxygen in maintaining adequate oxygen saturation during fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with pre-existing hypoxemia.
methodsWe retrospectively investigated 232 patients with hypoxemia who underwent bronchoscopy between January 2018 to August 2023 who received either HFNC or nasal cannula oxygen supplementation. The control group received nasal cannula oxygen, and the observation group received HFNC. The changes of oxygen saturation, heart rate, blood pressure and adverse events during the operation were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe patients were divided into the HFNC (n = 78) and nasal cannula oxygen (n = 154) groups. During FOB, although the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO
conclusionThe use of HFNC therapy can effectively reduce the incidence of SpO
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.