Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35402465›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022

Comfort During Non-invasive Ventilation.

Gianmaria Cammarota, Rachele Simonte, Edoardo De Robertis

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06257667 (Randomized Controlled Trial to Investigate the Effect of High Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment on Carbon Dioxide-levels in COPD- Patients With Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure, Using Either OptiflowTM or Optiflow+DuetTM Nasal Cannula), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06257667 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Trial to Investigate the Effect of High Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment on Carbon Dioxide-levels in COPD- Patients With Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure, Using Either OptiflowTM or Optiflow+DuetTM Nasal Cannula

TypeinterventionalSponsorAalborg University HospitalRan2024 to 2026Enrolled138ConditionsHypercapnic Respiratory Failure, COPDArmsRespiratory Support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Comparison of two different Nasal Interfaces used in Non-Invasive Respiratory support in terms of Neonate comfort.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2024
    Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gianmaria CammarotaDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Rachele SimonteDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Edoardo De RobertisDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
University of Perugia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to be effective in avoiding intubation and improving survival in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) when compared to conventional oxygen therapy. However, NIV is associated with high failure rates due, in most cases, to patient discomfort. Therefore, increasing attention has been paid to all those interventions aimed at enhancing patient's tolerance to NIV. Several practical aspects have been considered to improve patient adaptation. In particular, the choice of the interface and the ventilatory setting adopted for NIV play a key role in the success of respiratory assistance. Among the different NIV interfaces, tolerance is poorest for the nasal and oronasal masks, while helmet appears to be better tolerated, resulting in longer use and lower NIV failure rates. The choice of fixing system also significantly affects patient comfort due to pain and possible pressure ulcers related to the device. The ventilatory setting adopted for NIV is associated with varying degrees of patient comfort: patients are more comfortable with pressure-support ventilation (PSV) than controlled ventilation. Furthermore, the use of electrical activity of the diaphragm (EADi)-driven ventilation has been demonstrated to improve patient comfort when compared to PSV, while reducing neural drive and effort. If non-pharmacological remedies fail, sedation can be employed to improve patient's tolerance to NIV. Sedation facilitates ventilation, reduces anxiety, promotes sleep, and modulates physiological responses to stress. Judicious use of sedation may be an option to increase the chances of success in some patients at risk for intubation because of NIV intolerance consequent to pain, discomfort, claustrophobia, or agitation. During the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, NIV has been extensively employed to face off the massive request for ventilatory assistance. Prone positioning in non-intubated awake COVID-19 patients may improve oxygenation, reduce work of breathing, and, possibly, prevent intubation. Despite these advantages, maintaining prone position can be particularly challenging because poor comfort has been described as the main cause of prone position discontinuation. In conclusion, comfort is one of the major determinants of NIV success. All the strategies aimed to increase comfort during NIV should be pursued.

Indexed as

acute respiratory failure (ARF)comfortcontinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)non-invasive ventilation (NIV)respiration

Identifiers

PMID35402465
PMCPMC8988041
OpenAlexW4221120416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.