Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36949116›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2023

Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannulae compared with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in preventing reintubation in patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Chi-Wei Tseng, Ke-Yun Chao, Hsiu-Li Wu, Chen-Chun Lin, Han-Shui Hsu

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldFull text readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04564859 (The Efficiency of Heated Humidifier High-Flow Nasal Cannula Between Unheated Oxygen Therapy in Difficult Weaning Patients After Extubation in Respiratory Care Center), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

NCT04564859 nacompletednot on this map

The Efficiency of Heated Humidifier High-Flow Nasal Cannula Between Unheated Oxygen Therapy in Difficult Weaning Patients After Extubation in Respiratory Care Center

TypeinterventionalSponsorShin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial HospitalRan2017 to 2019Enrolled80ConditionsCritically IllnessArmsHeated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Chi-Wei TsengDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Ke-Yun ChaoDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Hsiu-Li WuDepartment of Nursing, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen-Chun LinDivision of Pulmonary Medicine, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. No.95, Wenchang Rd., Shilin Dist., Taipei, 111, Taiwan, R.O.C.. jimandiwen@gmail.com.
Han-Shui HsuInstitute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shih-Pai Road, Beitou District, Taipei, 112, Taiwan, R.O.C.. hsuhs@vghtpe.gov.tw.
Fu Jen Catholic University · TWChang Gung University · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many intensive care unit patients who undergo endotracheal extubation experience extubation failure and require reintubation. Because of the high mortality rate associated with reintubation, postextubation respiratory management is crucial, especially for high-risk populations. We conducted the present study to compare the effectiveness of oxygen therapy administered using high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preventing reintubation among patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). This single-center, prospective, unblinded randomized controlled trial was at the respiratory care center (RCC). Participants were randomized to an HFNC group or an NIPPV group (20 patients in each) and received noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) administered using their assigned method. The primary outcome was reintubation within7 days after extubation. None of the patients in the NIPPV group required reintubation, whereas 5 (25%) of the patients in the HFNC group required reintubation (P = 0.047). The 90-day mortality rates of the NIPPV and HFNC groups (four patients [20%] vs. two patients [10%], respectively) did not differ significantly. No significant differences in length of RCC stay, length of hospital stay, time to liberation from NRS, and ventilator-free days at 28-day were identified. The time to event outcome analysis also revealed that the risk of reintubation in the HFNC group was higher than that in the NIPPV group (P = 0.018). Although HFNC is becoming increasingly common as a form of postextubation NRS, HFNC may not be as effective as NIPPV in preventing reintubation among patients who have been receiving PMV for at least 2 weeks. Additional studies evaluating HFNC as an alternative to NIPPV for patients receiving PMV are warranted.ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT04564859; IRB number: 20160901R.Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04564859 ).

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsNoninvasive VentilationRespiratory InsufficiencyCannulaHumansPositive-Pressure RespirationProspective StudiesRespiration, Artificial

Identifiers

PMID36949116
PMCPMC10033681
OpenAlexW4360600656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read25
identifiers read1
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.