Oxygen Supplementation in Pediatric Sedation: Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial
Summary
This multicenter randomized trial assigned 253 children undergoing moderate-to-deep sedation to no supplemental oxygen, low-flow nasal-cannula oxygen (2–6 L/min), or high-flow nasal cannula (2 L/kg/min at FiO2 0.50); 250 completed the protocol. Hypoxemia (SpO2 95% or lower for more than 5 seconds) occurred in 27.6% without oxygen, 7.2% with low-flow oxygen, and 1.2% with high-flow oxygen. Both oxygen strategies reduced hypoxemia versus no oxygen; high flow was not statistically superior to low flow (OR 0.143, 95% CI 0.017–1.245). A subsequent open-access critique notes that the trial was not designed to establish equivalence/noninferiority between low-flow and high-flow oxygen, and the physiological outcome was largely transient desaturation.
Why it matters
For pediatric moderate/deep sedation, the regimen studied supports routine low-flow oxygen as a practical method to reduce monitored desaturation. It does not establish that HFNC is necessary or that supplemental oxygen substitutes for capnography, airway readiness, or active ventilation assessment.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Randomized trial
- Population
- Children younger than 18 years undergoing moderate-to-deep sedation for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in a multicenter anesthesiology setting.
- Sample size
- 253
- Intervention
- Low-flow nasal-cannula oxygen (2–6 L/min) or HFNC at 2 L/kg/min with FiO2 0.50 during sedation.
- Comparator
- No supplemental oxygen; the two oxygen strategies were also compared.
- Primary endpoint
- Hypoxemia: pulse oximetry oxygen saturation 95% or lower for more than 5 seconds.
Main findings
- Hypoxemia occurred in 27.6% with no oxygen, 7.2% with low-flow oxygen, and 1.2% with HFNC (overall P<0.001).
- Versus no oxygen, odds of hypoxemia were lower with low-flow oxygen (OR 0.184, 95% CI 0.067–0.503) and HFNC (OR 0.026, 95% CI 0.003–0.207).
- HFNC was not statistically superior to low-flow oxygen (OR 0.143, 95% CI 0.017–1.245; P=0.078); rescue interventions were 52.9%, 10.8%, and 3.6%, respectively.
- Open-access post-publication critique: the study cannot demonstrate equivalence/noninferiority of low-flow and high-flow oxygen and has limited ED generalizability.
Limitations
The setting, procedures, staffing, and largely propofol-based sedation regimen may not match ED procedural sedation. The primary threshold captured brief SpO2 changes; the trial was underpowered for clinically meaningful differences between low-flow and HFNC and did not establish equivalence.
Read the primary source
Full text: Open-access full text available.
Original sourceDOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000005500
PMID: 40215365
Material reviewed: full text.
Source retrieved Oct 29, 2026. Primary PubMed/PMC article reviewed, including electronic date and numerical outcomes. Open-access 2026 peer-reviewed commentary was also reviewed to assess power, endpoint significance, sedation context, and generalizability. The commentary is interpretive and does not alter the original trial’s results.
Corrections & review history
No corrections recorded. Human review: not yet human-reviewed.