Lower Oxygen Saturation Target Reduces Pediatric Hospital Stay, Oxygen Therapy

Rethinking Oxygen Saturation Targets in Pediatric Respiratory Illness

Acute respiratory illness is a primary driver of pediatric hospitalization, encompassing conditions from bronchiolitis to viral-induced wheezing [1]. The administration of supplemental oxygen is a cornerstone of management, intended to prevent hypoxemia and its sequelae [2, 3]. However, the optimal peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) target for guiding this therapy remains a subject of clinical debate, with many guidelines based on limited evidence [1, 4]. While under-oxygenation poses clear risks of organ dysfunction [5, 6], excessive oxygen can contribute to atelectasis and prolong hospital stays, increasing the burden on patients and healthcare systems [4, 7]. A recent randomized clinical trial provides robust data to inform this critical decision point in pediatric care.

Trial Design and Patient Cohort

The OxyKids trial, a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial, was designed to determine if a lower peripheral oxygen saturation threshold of 88% could safely shorten hospital stays compared to a 92% threshold in children with acute respiratory illness. Conducted across general pediatric wards, the study pragmatically used standard equipment for oxygen delivery, including low-flow or high-flow nasal cannulas and face masks. To isolate the variable of interest, all other treatments like bronchodilators or corticosteroids followed local protocols. The open-label design was necessary due to device regulations. The primary outcome was the time from admission to meeting predefined discharge criteria, evaluated using an intention-to-treat analysis, which includes all randomized patients in their assigned groups regardless of protocol adherence, thereby reflecting real-world clinical effectiveness. The trial is registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR 2023-504817-56) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06016244).

The analysis included 557 children, with 278 randomized to the 88% SpO₂ target group and 279 to the 92% group. The cohort was young, with a mean age of 2.0 years (SD 2.4), and comprised 317 males (57%) and 240 females (43%). Of the 480 participants with ethnicity data, 437 (91%) were Dutch. To maintain statistical integrity, the researchers addressed missing data rigorously. Missing primary outcome data were imputed based on the latest available time points, while missing covariates were handled using multiple imputation. This statistical technique creates and analyzes multiple complete datasets (20 in this study) to account for the uncertainty of missing values, a method that reduces bias and preserves the study's analytical power.

Reduced Hospital Stay and Oxygen Therapy Duration

The trial's primary finding was a substantial reduction in the time required for children to become clinically stable for discharge when managed with the lower oxygen saturation target. In the 88% SpO₂ group, the median time to meeting discharge criteria was 27.6 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 15.1-52.7), compared to 46.6 hours (IQR 24.2-85.1) in the 92% group. This represents an adjusted absolute difference of 16.8 hours (95% CI 12.1-20.8; p<0.0001). The adjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.64 (95% CI 0.55-0.74; p<0.0001) further quantifies this clinically significant acceleration toward recovery.

This benefit extended directly to the total length of hospitalization. The median hospital stay for the 88% target group was 39.8 hours (IQR 22.0-67.2), whereas the 92% target group had a median stay of 60.8 hours (IQR 38.5-95.8). The resulting adjusted difference was 17.6 hours (95% CI 12.5-22.6; p<0.0001), a reduction of nearly a full day. Furthermore, the lower saturation target led to a decreased intervention burden; oxygen therapy was initiated less frequently and for a shorter duration in the 88% group (adjusted geometric mean ratio 0.64 [95% CI 0.52-0.77]; p<0.0001). These results demonstrate that a more permissive oxygenation strategy can lessen the duration of both hospitalization and active treatment.

Safety Profile and Clinical Implications

A critical component of the study was its thorough evaluation of safety, which revealed that the benefits of the lower oxygen target did not come at the cost of increased risk. The analysis found no statistically significant differences between the 88% and 92% groups in serious adverse events, post-discharge healthcare visits within 28 days, overall recovery time, or parental anxiety. This reassuring safety profile provides a strong foundation for practice change, suggesting that the conventional higher target may represent a form of over-treatment for many patients.

For practicing clinicians, these findings support adopting a peripheral oxygen saturation threshold of 88% for children aged 6 weeks to 12 years with a broad range of acute respiratory illnesses in general pediatric settings. This strategy can significantly reduce the treatment burden by shortening hospital stays and decreasing the duration of oxygen therapy, which in turn may lower the risk of iatrogenic complications and improve resource allocation. The study provides evidence that clinicians can confidently de-escalate oxygen therapy sooner in these patients without incurring short-term harm. The research was supported by ZonMw, The Dutch Foundation for Asthma Prevention, the Spaarne Gasthuis and Amphia Hospital Research Funds, and the Dutch General Paediatrics Research Network of the Dutch Association for Paediatrics.

References

1. Louman S, Stralen KJV, Koppelman GH, et al. Oxygen saturation thresholds in children with acute respiratory distress (OxyKids): a multicentre, open, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial.. The Lancet. Respiratory medicine. 2026. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(26)00087-1

2. Pisciotta W, Passannante A, Arina P, Alotaibi K, Ambler G, Arulkumaran N. High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.. British journal of anaesthesia. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2023.12.022

3. Xu X, Yuan B, Liang Q, et al. Noninvasive ventilation for acute lung injury a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Heart & lung : the journal of critical care. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2016.02.005

4. Elfeky A, Chen Y, Grove A, et al. Perioperative oxygen therapy in patients undergoing surgical procedures: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2025. doi:10.3310/TNTC4360

5. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Medicine. 2007. doi:10.1007/s00134-007-0934-2

6. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, Mehta RL, Palevsky PM, workgroup TA. Acute renal failure – definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Critical Care. 2004. doi:10.1186/cc2872

7. Kjellberg A, Zhao A, Lussier A, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy as an immunomodulatory intervention in COVID-19-induced ARDS: Exploring clinical outcomes and transcriptomic signatures in a randomised controlled trial.. Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.pupt.2024.102330