Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35359136›Full record

Observational studyAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2022

Predicting the effectiveness of high-flow oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a single-centre observational study.

Felicitas Schmidt, Lorenz Nowak, Florian Obereisenbuchler, Justin Hetrodt, Marion Heiß-Neumann, Anna Schönlebe, Katharina Heinig-Menhard, Wolfgang Gesierich, Jürgen Behr, Rudolf Hatz and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy on clinical outcomes in adults with COVID-19: A systematic review.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Felicitas SchmidtDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany.
Lorenz NowakDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany.
Florian ObereisenbuchlerDepartment of Pneumology, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany; member of the German Centre for Lung Research.
Justin HetrodtDepartment of Pneumology, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany; member of the German Centre for Lung Research.
Marion Heiß-NeumannDepartment of Pneumology, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany; member of the German Centre for Lung Research.
Anna SchönlebeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany.
Katharina Heinig-MenhardDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany.
Wolfgang GesierichDepartment of Pneumology, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany; member of the German Centre for Lung Research.
Jürgen BehrDepartment of Pneumology, Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany; member of the German Centre for Lung Research.
Rudolf HatzCenter for Thoracic Surgery Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Julien DinkelCenter for Thoracic Surgery Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Mircea-Gabriel StoleriuComprehensive Pneumology Centre, Helmholtz Center Munich, Munich, Germany; member of the German Centre for Lung Research.
Asklepios Fachkliniken München-Gauting · DEGerman Center for Lung Research · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is a helpful tool in the treatment of hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, the clinical parameters predicting the effectiveness of HFNC in coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) patients remain unclear.

methodsSixteen COVID-19 patients undergoing HFNC in the Asklepios Lung Clinic Munich-Gauting, Germany between 16 March and 3 June 2020 were retrospectively included into the study. Seven patients successfully recovered after HFNC (Group 1), while 9 patients required intubation upon HFNC failure (Group 2). Relevant predictors for an effective HFNC therapy were analysed on day 0 and 4 after HFNC initiation via receiver operating characteristics.

resultsThe groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities. Five patients died in Group 2 upon disease progression and HFNC failure. Group 1 required a lower oxygen supplementation (FiO2 0.46 [0.31-0.54] vs. 0.72 [0.54-0.76], P = 0.022) and displayed a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio (115 [111-201] vs. 93.3 [67.2-145], P = 0.042) on day 0. In Group 2, fever persisted on day 4 (38.5 [38.0-39.4]°C vs. 36.5 [31.1-37.1]°C, P = 0.010). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels > 108 mg L-1 (day 0) and persistent oxygen saturation < 89% and PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 91 (day 4) were identified as significant predictors for HFNC failure (area under curve 0.929, 0.933, and 0.893).

conclusionsElevated oxygen saturation, decreased FiO2 and reduced serum CRP on day 4 significantly predict HFNC effectiveness in COVID-19 patients. Based on these parameters, larger prospective studies are necessary to further investigate the effectiveness of HFNC in the treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansOxygenOxygen Inhalation TherapyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesOxygenCOVID-19high-flow therapyintensive careSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35359136
PMCPMC10156491
OpenAlexW4226217905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.