Trial reportJournal of Korean medical science2020
Comparison of Postextubation Outcomes Associated with High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients at High Risk of Reintubation: a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of Korean medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive respiratory support after extubation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023Pooled it
- Noninvasive respiratory support following extubation in critically ill adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of preventive use of oxygen therapy after planned extubation in high-risk patients with extubation failure: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Post-extubation oxygenation strategies in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Letter on "Physiological effects of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy after extubation: a randomized crossover study".Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Asymmetrical high-flow nasal cannula performs similarly to standard interface in patients with acute hypoxemic post-extubation respiratory failure: a pilot study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula as an Alternate Weaning Strategy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Cureus · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiberation and extubation are important for patients supported by mechanical ventilation. Extubation success is related to the duration of an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality rate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has physiological and clinical benefits in respiratory care. The present study compared clinical outcomes associated with HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) among patients at high risk for reintubation.
methodsA single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted between March 2018 and June 2019. Sixty adults admitted to the ICU and who were at high-risk of reintubation and met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. "High risk" for reintubation was defined as having at least one of the following risk factors: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 points on extubation day, obesity, poor expectoration, airway patency problems, difficult or prolonged weaning, and more than one comorbidity. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included duration of ICU and hospital stay, mortality rate, and time to reintubation.
resultsOf 60 patients, 31 received HFNC and 29 received COT (mean age, 78 ± 7.8 vs. 76 ± 6.5 years, respectively). Reintubation rate within 72 hours did not differ between the groups (3 patients [9.7%] vs. 1 patient [3.4%], respectively). Reintubation time was shorter among patients who received COT than among patients who received HFNC (0.5 hour vs. 25 hours), but this difference was not statistically significant. Duration of ICU did not differ between the groups (14.7 ± 9.6 days vs. 13.8 ± 15.7 days, for HFNC and COT, respectively).
conclusionAmong patients at high risk for reintubation, compared with COT, HFNC did not reduce the risk of reintubation within 72 hours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.