# Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Facemask on Arterial Oxygenation During Liver Radiofrequency Ablation: Randomized Controlled Trial

## TL;DR

This study found that high-flow nasal cannula improves oxygen levels during liver ablation procedures compared to facemask oxygenation.

## Contribution

The study provides new evidence comparing high-flow nasal cannula and facemask for oxygenation during liver radiofrequency ablation under monitored anesthesia care.

## Key findings

- HFNC significantly increased arterial oxygen levels compared to facemask during liver ablation.
- HFNC showed more stable respiratory rates during the procedure compared to facemask.
- No significant differences were found in hypoxia incidence or patient satisfaction between the groups.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: Percutaneous liver radiofrequency ablation (RFA) under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) carries a risk of hypoxia due to respiratory depression. Ensuring adequate oxygenation during such procedures is essential for patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate whether a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) improves oxygenation compared to a simple facemask during RFA. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 51 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided RFA under MAC were allocated to receive oxygen via an HFNC (30 L/min) or a facemask (6 L/min). Arterial blood gases were collected at the baseline and 5 min after oxygenation. The primary outcome was the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2). Secondary outcomes included hypoxia incidence (SpO2 < 95%), the difference in the ratio of the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (ΔP/F ratio), the difference in the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (ΔPaCO2), respiratory rate (RR) changes, and patient satisfaction. Results: After adjustment for the baseline PaO2, the HFNC group showed significantly higher intra-procedural PaO2 compared to the facemask group (299 ± 18.6 vs. 194 ± 19.0 mmHg, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the ΔP/F ratio, ΔPaCO2, or patient satisfaction. Among the secondary outcomes, RR was more stable in the HFNC group throughout the procedure (Group × Time interaction, p = 0.003). Conclusions: The HFNC significantly improved intra-procedural PaO2 during RFA under MAC but did not reduce hypoxia incidence or improve other clinical outcomes compared to facemask oxygenation. The stability of RR observed with the HFNC may reflect a physiological advantage, though further studies are needed to determine its clinical relevance.