Respiratory failure & ventilation
Perioperative oxygen therapy: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Pooled result · Co-primary outcomes: SSI and mortalityResult — go to the resultRelative risk 0.87 95% CI 0.76–1.01Authors' conclusion
We did not find evidence to support routine use of high inspired oxygen to reduce surgical site infection and improve patient outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Surgical patients receiving perioperative oxygen therapy59 systematic reviews
- Comparison
- High fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) vs Low Fio2
- Outcome
- Co-primary: surgical site infection (SSI) and mortality
Methodological detailsupdated meta-analyses, ROBIS risk of bias, GRADE, trial sequential analysis, exploratory meta-regression
- Updated meta-analyses
- ROBIS risk of bias
- GRADE
- Trial sequential analysis
- Exploratory meta-regression
Pooled result
Co-primary outcomes: SSI and mortality
Relative risk
0.87
95% CI 0.76–1.01
High Fio2 vs Low Fio2
RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76–1.01)
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
- Postoperative noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) may reduce some pulmonary adverse events vs COT (low- to very low-certainty evidence)
Safety
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| AtelectasisHigh Fio2 vs Low Fio2 · RD 6.5% higher (2.8% higher to 10.9% higher) · low-certainty evidence | 1.47 (1.20–1.79) | |
| 0.512Relative risk (log scale) |
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Perioperative oxygen therapy: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Br J Anaesth. Published 6 June 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →