Trial reportRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2025
High Flow Nasal Oxygen and Low Flow Oxygen Are Equally Effective in Providing Oxygenation During Bronchoscopy Under Conscious Sedation: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveOxygen desaturations and hypoxaemia are common during bronchoscopy despite the use of conventional low flow oxygen (LFO). Some researchers suggest high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) may improve oxygenation in patients undergoing bronchoscopy; however, trials have varied widely in their methodology and patient population. Evidence of use in a broad patient cohort and assessment of other important considerations, including clinician/patient satisfaction, is lacking. We hypothesised that HFNO during bronchoscopy and EBUS would reduce desaturations/hypoxaemia, oxygen titrations, respiratory rate, and cough frequency when compared to LFO. We also explored clinician and patient satisfaction.
methodsParticipants undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy or EBUS with conscious sedation were randomised to receive LFO or HFNO. Data was collected via physiological monitoring devices, health records, and clinician/patient questions. The primary outcome was time spent with SpO
resultsA total of 121 participants were included. There was no difference in oxygenation and desaturations between LFO (n = 61) and HFNO (n = 60) in all procedures. This was also observed within the separate strata of bronchoscopy (n = 75) and EBUS (n = 46). HFNO reduced the respiratory rate in EBUS procedures (p < 0.05). The clinician satisfaction score was higher with HFNO in bronchoscopy procedures (p < 0.05). The requirement for oxygen titrations was lower with HFNO, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in cough frequency.
conclusionLFO and HFNO were equally effective in maintaining oxygenation during bronchoscopy and EBUS in our population. HFNO had higher clinician satisfaction during bronchoscopy and may have a physiological advantage during EBUS as demonstrated by a lower respiratory rate.
trial registrationANZCTRN12623001262695.
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.