ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Apnoeic oxygenation in pediatric anesthesia: better safe than sorry!
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Apneic Oxygenation During Induction of General Anesthesia in Children Undergoing Adenotonsillectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Risk factors for and outcomes of intraoperative desaturation in neonates undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective study.World journal of pediatric surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren, especially neonates and infants, are at particularly high risk of hypoxemia during induction of anesthesia. The addition of nasal apnoeic oxygenation (ApOx) during tracheal intubation should prolong safe apnoea time without desaturation and reduce the risk of hypoxemia. Despite the recommendations in the relevant European guidelines, their implementation in pediatric anesthesia in Germany is not yet known.
methodsA survey was conducted in July and October 2024 via email to all registered members of the scientific working group on airway management, the scientific working group on pediatric anesthesia of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and hospitals of all levels in Germany. Participants were asked about their personal and institutional background and the use of ApOx in pediatric anesthesia in their institution.
resultsOf the eight hundred participants invited, 304 anesthetists completed the survey (response rate 38%). In addition, 36 of 109 invited anesthetists from the scientific working group on pediatric anesthesia were interviewed as a separate expert group. 201 (66.1%) of the anesthetists surveyed in the general group stated that they worked regular in pediatric anesthesia (pediatric anesthesia expert group: 94.4%). 64.2% of the general respondents considered pediatric patients to be at an increased risk of reduced apnoea time. 46.7% of the general participants are of the opinion that pediatric patients should generally not receive ApOx during induction of anesthesia. If ApOx is performed, then most likely with a standard nasal cannula. ApOx was generally used in infants with an oxygen flow rate of ≤ 2 l/min or 0.2 l/kg bodyweight/min. A relevant proportion of anesthetists were unaware that current European guidelines recommend ApOx for neonates and infants (general participants: 62.5%, pediatric anesthesia expert group: 39%).
conclusionsDespite the recommendations in the guidelines, the use of ApOx does not appear to be standard practice at present. Furthermore, the surveyed physicians exhibited considerable uncertainty regarding ApOx. It is imperative that further improvements are made in the dissemination of the current guidelines with a view to enhancing patient safety during pediatric anesthesia.
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.