ArticleCureus2024
High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19 Patients With Moderate to Severe Respiratory Distress: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Efficacy of High Flow Nasal Cannula in the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19 with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Results of Single Centre Study in Vietnam.Pulmonary therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a device for non-invasive ventilation (NIV). It was utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with moderate to severe respiratory distress due to its benefit profile in delaying intubation, ease of use, and comfort of patients in comparison to NIV.
objectivesOur main objective is to calculate the intubation rate of patients with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID-19 in moderate to severe respiratory distress who failed graded oxygen therapy (GOT). Before incorporating HFNC as a treatment option, the intubation rate was 100% after GOT failure. We calculated the rate of intubation at two, six, and 12 hours of starting HFNC, where each patient is in their own control with an assumed intubation rate of 100%. Other objectives include measuring the rate of improvement of the ROX index, respiratory rate (RR), and oxygen saturation (SPO2) levels at two, six, and 12 hours.
methodsWe retrospectively screened patients with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection in moderate to severe respiratory distress at Rashid Hospital Trauma Center, Emergency Department in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from April 10, 2020, until December 31, 2020. The list of patients was pooled from the SALAMA electronic system.
resultsA total of 121 patients were included in the analysis. Assuming an intubation rate of 100% at 0 hours (end of GOT), after starting HFNC, the intubation rate (primary outcome) at two hours was 7.43% (9/121), at six hours was 7.14% (8/112), and at 12 hours was 5.77% (6/104). The total intubation rate at 12 hours was 19% (23/121). The use of HFNC was also shown to improve the ROX index, RR, and SPO2 at two, six, and 12 hours.
conclusionIn patients with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID-19 in moderate to severe respiratory distress who failed GOT and were started on HFNC, it was noted that the intubation rate decreased from an assumed rate of 100% to 19% at 12 hours from starting the treatment. There was also a statistically significant improvement in the ROX index, SPO2, and RR at two, six, and 12 hours from the initiation at 0 hours.
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.