Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36166027›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2022

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen vs Standard Oxygen Therapy on Mortality in Patients With Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The SOHO-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jean-Pierre Frat, Jean-Pierre Quenot, Julio Badie, Rémi Coudroy, Christophe Guitton, Stephan Ehrmann, Arnaud Gacouin, Hamid Merdji, Johann Auchabie, Cédric Daubin and 22 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04468126 (Impact on Mortality of an Oxygenation Strategy Including Standard Oxygen Versus High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 72 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
17.6field-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.

NCT04468126 nacompletednot on this map

Impact on Mortality of an Oxygenation Strategy Including Standard Oxygen Versus High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorPoitiers University HospitalRan2021 to 2024Enrolled1,504ConditionsAcute Respiratory Failure, Hypoxemic Respiratory FailureArmsStandard oxygen, High-flow nasal oxygen therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.

Jean-Pierre FratCHU de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Poitiers, France.
Jean-Pierre QuenotCHU Dijon-Bourgogne, Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Dijon, France.
Julio BadieHopital Nord Franche-Comte, Montbeliard, France.
Rémi CoudroyCHU de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Poitiers, France.
Christophe GuittonCH du Mans, Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, Le Mans, France.
Stephan EhrmannCHRU Tours, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Tours, France.
Arnaud GacouinCHU de Rennes, Hôpital Pontchaillou, Service des Maladies Infectieuses et Réanimation Médicale, Rennes, France.
Hamid MerdjiHôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Strasbourg, France.
Johann AuchabieCH de Cholet, Service de Réanimation Polyvalente, Cholet, France.
Cédric DaubinCHU de Caen, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Caen, France.
Anne-Florence DureauGHR Mulhouse Sud-Alsace, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Mulhouse, France.
Laure ThibaultGroupe Hospitalier Sud de la Réunion, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Saint Pierre, France.
Nicholas SedillotCH de Bourg-en-Bresse, Service de Réanimation, Bourg-en-Bresse, France.
Jean-Philippe RigaudCH de Dieppe, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Dieppe, France.
Alexandre DemouleAP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHP-Sorbonne Université, site Pitié-Salpêtrière, Médecine Intensive et Réanimation (Département R3S) and Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Abdelhamid FatahGroupement Hospitalier Nord-Dauphiné, Service de Réanimation, Bourgoin-Jallieu, France.
Nicolas TerziCHU Grenoble Alpes, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Grenoble, France.
Marine SimoninHôpital Saint-Joseph Saint-Luc, Réanimation Polyvalente, Lyon, France.
William DanjouCHU La Croix Rousse, Hospices civils de Lyon, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Lyon, France.
Guillaume CarteauxAP-HP, CHU Henri Mondor, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Créteil, France.
Charlotte GuesdonCH de Pau, Réanimation polyvalente, Pau, France.
Gaël PradelCH Henri Mondor d'Aurillac, Service de Réanimation, Aurillac, France.
Marie-Catherine BesseCH de Bourges, Réanimation polyvalente, Bourges, France.
Jean ReignierCHU de Nantes, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Nantes, France.
François BeloncleCHU d'Angers, Département de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation et Médecine Hyperbare, Angers, France.
Béatrice La CombeGroupe Hospitalier Bretagne Sud, Service de Réanimation polyvalente, Lorient, France.
Gwénaël PratCHU de Brest, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Brest, France.
Mai-Anh NayCHR d'Orléans, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Orléans, France.
Joe de KeizerINSERM, CIC-1402, Poitiers, France; Université de Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Stéphanie RagotINSERM, CIC-1402, Poitiers, France; Université de Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Arnaud W ThilleCHU de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Poitiers, France.
SOHO-COVID Study Group and the REVA Network
Inserm · FRCentre Hospitalier de Bretagne Sud · FRCentre Hospitalier de Lens · FRCentre Hospitalier De Pau · FRCentre Hospitalier du Mans · FRCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de La Réunion · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes · FRCentre hospitalier universitaire d'Orléans · FRCentre Médical de La Teppe · FRÉcole Nationale Supérieure d'Art · FRGroupe Hospitalier de la Région de Mulhouse et Sud Alsace · FRHôpital Pontchaillou · FRHôpital Saint Joseph · FRHospices Civils de Lyon · FRInt'Air Medical (France) · FRL'Hôpital Nord Franche-Comté · FRUniversité de Tours · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial. Objective: To determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. Results: Among the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, -1.2% [95% CI, -5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, -7.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, -7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126.

Indexed as

COVID-19Oxygen Inhalation TherapyRespiratory InsufficiencyCannulaFemaleHumansMaleMasksMiddle AgedOxygenOxygen

Identifiers

PMID36166027
PMCPMC9516287
OpenAlexW4297251288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.