← All articles
Randomized trialAnesthesiology

Oxygen Supplementation in Pediatric Sedation: Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

First online Apr 11, 2025On EM Weekly Oct 29, 2026Discovered Oct 29, 2026AI-generated Not yet human-reviewed

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 source

DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000005500

PMID: 40215365

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.