Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31308647›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2019

Nasal high-flow versus noninvasive ventilation in patients with chronic hypercapnic COPD.

Jens Bräunlich, Dominic Dellweg, Andreas Bastian, Stephan Budweiser, Winfried Randerath, Dora Triché, Martin Bachmann, Christian Kähler, Abdel Hakim Bayarassou, Irmhild Mäder and 4 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Development in PaCOBMJ open respiratory research · 2020
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Jens BräunlichDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University of Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6147-6366
Dominic DellwegFachkrankenhaus Kloster Grafschaft GmbH , Schmallenberg Grafschaft, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0581-3441
Andreas BastianPneumologie/Intensivmedizin/Infektiologie, Marienkrankenhaus Kassel , Kassel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5774-2844
Stephan BudweiserMedizinische Klinik III, RoMed Klinikum Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Germany.
Winfried RanderathKrankenhaus Bethanien gGmbH, Klinik für Pneumologie und Allergologie, Zentrum für Schlaf- und Beatmungsmedizin, Solingen, Germany.
Dora TrichéDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Sleep Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University Nuernberg, General Hospital Nuernberg, Nürnberg, Germany.
Martin BachmannIntensivmedizin und Beatmungsmedizin, Klinik für Atemwegs-, Lungen- und Thoraxmedizin, Asklepios Klinikum Harburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Christian KählerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.
Abdel Hakim BayarassouKlinik für Pneumologie, Kardiologie, Schlaf- und Beatmungsmedizin, Malteser Krankenhaus Seliger Gerhard, Bonn/Rhein-Sieg, Bonn, Germany.
Irmhild MäderZentralklinik Bad Berka GmbH, Klinik für Pneumologie, Bad Berka, Germany.
Jens GeiselerMedizinische Klinik IV, Klinikum Vest - Paracelsus-Klinik Marl, Marl, Germany.
Norbert KöhlerClinical Trial Centre Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0724-3825
David PetroffClinical Trial Centre Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6916-1465
Hubert WirtzDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University of Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite the encouraging results of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients, it is also evident that some patients do not tolerate NIV or do not benefit from it. We conducted a study in which COPD patients with stable, chronic hypercapnia were treated with NIV and nasal high-flow (NHF) to compare effectiveness. Methods: In a multi-centered, randomized, controlled, cross-over design, patients received 6 weeks of NHF ventilation followed by 6 weeks of NIV ventilation or vice-versa (TIBICO) between 2011 and 2016. COPD patients with stable daytime hypercapnia (pCO Results: A total of 102 patients (mean±SD) age 65.3±9.3 years, 61% females, body mass index 23.1±4.8 kg/m Conclusions: NHF may constitute an alternative to NIV in COPD patients with stable chronic hypercapnia, eg, those not tolerating or rejecting NIV with respect to pCO

Indexed as

Noninvasive VentilationOxygen Inhalation TherapyAdministration, IntranasalAgedCross-Over StudiesGermanyHumansHypercapniaLungMiddle AgedPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCOPDhypercapnianasal high-flownoninvasive ventilation

Identifiers

PMID31308647
PMCPMC6615713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.