ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024
Effectiveness of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in preventing tracheal reintubation in patients with high risk of extubation failure in intensive care unit - A randomised comparative trial.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation for Prevention of Reintubation in High-Risk Critically Ill Patients (HIGH-FLOW OXY): An Informative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care explorations · 2026Pooled it
- The efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive mechanical ventilation in preventing reintubation in patients at high risk of extubation failure: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Critical care science · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing clinical decision-making: The imperative of reporting number needed to treat in anaesthesia research.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The incidence of tracheal extubation failure in high-risk patients is higher, and non-invasive ventilation is suggested to avoid tracheal reintubation. This study compares the effectiveness of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to reduce the rate of reintubation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with increased risk of extubation failure. Methods: This randomised comparative trial was conducted on 60 high-risk patients on mechanical ventilators admitted to the ICU, ready for weaning after a spontaneous breathing trial. They were randomised to Group H for HFNC and Group B for BiPAP therapy. Designated therapy was administered in these high-risk patients for up to 48 hours after tracheal extubation. Haemodynamic parameters [mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), a saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO Results: Most of the patients were obese and had more than two risk factors for extubation failure. Several patients in Group B have significantly higher successful extubation than in Group H ( Conclusion: BiPAP therapy was more efficient than HFNC in preventing tracheal reintubation among patients with a high risk of extubation 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.