Abstract

Purpose of review The topic of perioperative hyperoxia remains controversial, with valid arguments on both the 'pro' and 'con' side. On the 'pro' side, the prevention of surgical site infections was a strong argument, leading to the recommendation of the use of hyperoxia in the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control and the WHO. On the 'con' side, the pathophysiology of hyperoxia has increasingly been acknowledged, in particular the pulmonary side effects and aggravation of ischaemia/reperfusion injuries. Recent findings Some 'pro' articles leading to the Center for Disease Control and WHO guidelines advocating perioperative hyperoxia have been retracted, and the recommendations were downgraded from 'strong' to 'conditional'. At the same time, evidence that supports a tailored, more restrictive use of oxygen, for example, in patients with myocardial infarction or following cardiac arrest, is accumulating. Summary The change in recommendation exemplifies that despite much work performed on the field of hyperoxia recently, evidence on either side of the argument remains weak. Outcome-based research is needed for reaching a definite recommendation.
Original languageEnglish
JournalCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology
Volume32
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2019

Cite this

@article{795636e25f164f089acef54242c4408d,
title = "Benefits and harms of increased inspiratory oxygen concentrations",
abstract = "Purpose of review The topic of perioperative hyperoxia remains controversial, with valid arguments on both the 'pro' and 'con' side. On the 'pro' side, the prevention of surgical site infections was a strong argument, leading to the recommendation of the use of hyperoxia in the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control and the WHO. On the 'con' side, the pathophysiology of hyperoxia has increasingly been acknowledged, in particular the pulmonary side effects and aggravation of ischaemia/reperfusion injuries. Recent findings Some 'pro' articles leading to the Center for Disease Control and WHO guidelines advocating perioperative hyperoxia have been retracted, and the recommendations were downgraded from 'strong' to 'conditional'. At the same time, evidence that supports a tailored, more restrictive use of oxygen, for example, in patients with myocardial infarction or following cardiac arrest, is accumulating. Summary The change in recommendation exemplifies that despite much work performed on the field of hyperoxia recently, evidence on either side of the argument remains weak. Outcome-based research is needed for reaching a definite recommendation.",
author = "Schwarte, {Lothar A.} and Patrick Schober and Loer, {Stephan A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ACO.0000000000000791",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
journal = "Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology",
issn = "0952-7907",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

Benefits and harms of increased inspiratory oxygen concentrations. / Schwarte, Lothar A.; Schober, Patrick; Loer, Stephan A.

In: Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, Vol. 32, 01.12.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benefits and harms of increased inspiratory oxygen concentrations

AU - Schwarte, Lothar A.

AU - Schober, Patrick

AU - Loer, Stephan A.

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - Purpose of review The topic of perioperative hyperoxia remains controversial, with valid arguments on both the 'pro' and 'con' side. On the 'pro' side, the prevention of surgical site infections was a strong argument, leading to the recommendation of the use of hyperoxia in the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control and the WHO. On the 'con' side, the pathophysiology of hyperoxia has increasingly been acknowledged, in particular the pulmonary side effects and aggravation of ischaemia/reperfusion injuries. Recent findings Some 'pro' articles leading to the Center for Disease Control and WHO guidelines advocating perioperative hyperoxia have been retracted, and the recommendations were downgraded from 'strong' to 'conditional'. At the same time, evidence that supports a tailored, more restrictive use of oxygen, for example, in patients with myocardial infarction or following cardiac arrest, is accumulating. Summary The change in recommendation exemplifies that despite much work performed on the field of hyperoxia recently, evidence on either side of the argument remains weak. Outcome-based research is needed for reaching a definite recommendation.

AB - Purpose of review The topic of perioperative hyperoxia remains controversial, with valid arguments on both the 'pro' and 'con' side. On the 'pro' side, the prevention of surgical site infections was a strong argument, leading to the recommendation of the use of hyperoxia in the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control and the WHO. On the 'con' side, the pathophysiology of hyperoxia has increasingly been acknowledged, in particular the pulmonary side effects and aggravation of ischaemia/reperfusion injuries. Recent findings Some 'pro' articles leading to the Center for Disease Control and WHO guidelines advocating perioperative hyperoxia have been retracted, and the recommendations were downgraded from 'strong' to 'conditional'. At the same time, evidence that supports a tailored, more restrictive use of oxygen, for example, in patients with myocardial infarction or following cardiac arrest, is accumulating. Summary The change in recommendation exemplifies that despite much work performed on the field of hyperoxia recently, evidence on either side of the argument remains weak. Outcome-based research is needed for reaching a definite recommendation.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85071659167&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31464698

U2 - 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000791

DO - 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000791

M3 - Review article

VL - 32

JO - Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

JF - Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

SN - 0952-7907

ER -