ArticleRespiratory research2024
Prognosis of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 after failure of high-flow nasal cannula: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an argument whether the delayed intubation aggravate the respiratory failure in Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure before mechanical ventilation on clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included mechanically ventilated patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between February 2020 and December 2021 at Asan Medical Center. The patients were divided into HFNC failure (HFNC-F) and mechanical ventilation (MV) groups according to the use of HFNC before MV. The primary outcome of this study was to compare the worst values of ventilator parameters from day 1 to day 3 after mechanical ventilation between the two groups.
resultsOverall, 158 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 were included in this study: 107 patients (67.7%) in the HFNC-F group and 51 (32.3%) in the MV group. The two groups had similar profiles of ventilator parameter from day 1 to day 3 after mechanical ventilation, except of dynamic compliance on day 3 (28.38 mL/cmH2O in MV vs. 30.67 mL/H2O in HFNC-F, p = 0.032). In addition, the HFNC-F group (5.6%) had a lower rate of ECMO at 28 days than the MV group (17.6%), even after adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.83; p = 0.045).
conclusionsAmong mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, HFNC failure before mechanical ventilation was not associated with deterioration of respiratory failure.
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.