ArticleJournal of medical virology2022
Factors associated with mechanical ventilation in SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and outcomes.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Factors associated with mechanical ventilation in SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and outcomes.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- Characteristic and outcome changes in inpatients with COVID-19 during the four pre - Omicron waves.HippokratiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Five percent of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 require advanced respiratory support. The high-flow nasal cannula oxygenotherapy (HFNCO) appears to be effective and safe to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation. However, the factors associated with HFNCO failure as well as the outcomes of patients receiving this noninvasive respiratory strategy remain unclear. Thus, we performed this study to determine factors leading to intubation of SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with HFNCO and patients' outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed the medical charts of patients admitted in our ICU center for acute respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and who initially benefited from HFNCO, between September 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021. We included all adults patients who received HFNCO and compared two groups: those treated with HFNCO alone and those who failed HFNCO. Patients treated with HFNCO and secondarily limited to the use of mechanical ventilation were excluded from the analysis. Sixty-nine patients were included, 33 were treated with HFNCO alone and 36 failed HFNCO. We found more patients with shock in the HFNCO failure group (p = 0.001). The mean IGSII score was higher in the HFNCO failure group (p < 0.001). The minimum PaO
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.