Paper Review: Are we hurting patients via oxygen supplementation?

    NextPrevious

    Paper Review: Are we hurting patients via oxygen supplementation?

    Bottom line up front: A recent large, high quality meta-analysis reported a significant mortality effect with the use of liberal, rather than conservative, oxygen supplementation. The number needed harm for 30-day mortality was 1 in 126. A modest but relevant NNH given how common oxygen supplementation is in the ER. Consider titrating all forms of oxygen supplementation – whether it be NC, NPPV or invasive ventilation – to a SpO2 of 94-96%.

     

    Background: Oxygen supplementation is ubiquitous in the practice of modern medicine. A recent large meta-analysis published in Lancet, the Improving Oxygen Therapy in Acute-illness (IOTA) review, called into question the use of liberal oxygen supplementation.

    Methods: The study combined the findings of 25 RCTs comparing liberal v conservative O2 supplementation across a wide spectrum of illnesses (ACS, stroke, sepsis, critical illness and emergency surgery). Patients were excluded if they had chronic pulmonary disease, required hyperbaric therapy or ECMO. Primary study endpoints were mortality measured at various time points. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay and rates of hospital acquired infection.

    Results: The 25 RCTs included a total of 16,037 patients. Median oxygen supplementation levels were fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) 0.52 vs. 0.21 (liberal vs. conservative). Authors found that liberal oxygen supplementation increased in-hospital mortality with a RR 1.21 (95% CI 1.03-1.43 ; NNH 1 in 137) and 30-day mortality with a RR 1.14 (95% CI 1.01-1.28 ; NNH 1 in 126). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary endpoints.

    Study Strengths:

    1. Solely reliant on data from RCTs.
    2. Large number of patients over a wide spectrum of disease.
    3. Exclusion of pts with chronic pulmonary disease. We can’t blame these findings on inadvertent blunting of the hypoxic respiratory drive that we observe in COPDers.
    4. There are few study endpoints as meaningful as mortality.
    5. The authors demonstrated a dose-response relationship between SpO2 and increased mortality above SpO2 of 96%.
    6. Findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses.

    Study Limitations:

    1. Authors fail to elicit or hypothesize the mechanism by which hyperoxemia causes harm. The authors allude to animal studies suggesting that oxidative stress increases risk for acute lung injury and excess oxygen promotes harmful vasoconstriction. However, it is equally plausible that liberal oxygen supplementation simply leads to delayed recognition of clinical decompensation.
    2. Authors provided limited commentary on subgroup analyses. The authors demonstrate some benefit to liberal oxygen therapy in reducing infection in the peri-operative setting, which is consistent with findings in prior papers. Unfortunately, the authors gloss over these findings in an effort to push forth their hypothesis. Furthermore, the authors provide limited commentary on the potential benefits of hyperoxemia in salvaging the penumbra for stroke patients.
    3. Authors do not differentiate between various types of O2 supplementation (eg, NC v NPPV v invasive ventilation).

    Conclusion: Conservative O2 therapy > liberal O2 therapy. Titrate supplemental O2 to SpO2 94-96%. This is an active area of research and more papers are likely to come.

    Source:

    Chu DK, Kim L, et al. Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. Vol 391, Issue 10131, p 1693-1705, Apr 28, 2018.

    • Welcome! This is the website for the Mount Sinai Emergency Ultrasound Division. It serves as an information resource for residents, fellows, medical students and others seeking information about point-of-care ultrasound. There is a lot ofRead more

    • It’s Freezing!

      You are at elmhurst in the cardiac room. It is FREEZING outside. The triage nurse tells you there is a frequent flier in triage, EMS found him sleeping on the street with +AOB. He isRead more

    • pediatric blood transfusion

      So you’re in peds and your patient is anemic. You need to transfuse, but you are confused. How much blood do you give? How fast do you give it? How much: The volume of bloodRead more

    • Spontaneous Pneumomediastinum

      Your patient is a 24 yo M with chest pain.  It is pleuritic. He has normal vitals and you’re not too concerned. You get a CXR and you see the result in this post. HeRead more

    • In flight emergencies and when to land the plane

      You are on a flight, halfway across the Atlantic Ocean at the start of a much needed vacation, binge watching that new show everyone has been talking about but you’ve never had time to see. Read more

    • PE risk stratification: which tool is best?

        Your patient with a newly diagnosed PE hates hospitals.  He or she agrees to defer to your judgement about admission versus discharge home, but makes it clear they would prefer to go home ifRead more

    • Proper cane use

      We give out canes like they’re candy.  But are we doing a good job adjusting the cane and teaching patients how to use them?  Canes that are not the right height for your patient orRead more

    • Do antivirals or steroids help make shingles better?

      A patient comes to the emergency department reporting a few days of excruciating pain in a band around his right chest.  Today, he developed vesicles over the same area which prompted him to come in.Read more

    • Double Sequence No-no???

        You are the leader of the code team.  Your patient is in refractory VF after multiple rounds of shocks and drugs.  You’ve tried repositioning the pads into an anterior-posterior position.  Looking around, you askRead more

    NextPrevious