Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38568930›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy versus Non-Invasive Ventilation in patients at very high risk for extubating failure: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Ziyad F Al Nufaiei, Raid M Al Zhranei

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. PaCOFrontiers in medicine · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ziyad F Al NufaieiCollege of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-7201-7421
Raid M Al ZhraneiCollege of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMechanical ventilation is commonly used for managing respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but weaning patients off ventilator support can be challenging and associated with complications. While many patients respond well to Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), a significant proportion may not respond as favourably. We aimed to assess whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is equally effective as NIV in reducing extubation failure among previously intubated COPD patients.

methodsThis systematic review was carried out in line with PRISMA guidelines We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until February 15, 2023. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) of adults at high risk for extubating failure were included. We examined the use of HFNC as the intervention and NIV as the comparator. Our outcome of interest included, reintubation rate, length of hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) stay, adverse events, and time to reintubation. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for randomized trials to assess risk of bias.

resultsWe identified 348 citations, 11 of which were included, representing 2,666 patients. The trials indicate that HFNC is comparable to NIV in preventing reintubation after extubating in COPD patients. In comparison to NIV, HFNC also produced improved tolerance, comfort, and less complications such as airway care interventions. NIV with active humification may be more effective that HFNC in avoiding reintubation in patients who are at extremely high risk for extubating failure.

conclusionThe inconclusive nature of emerging evidence highlights the need for additional studies to establish the efficacy and suitability of HFNC as an alternative to NIV for previously intubated COPD patients. Clinicians should consider the available options and individualize their approach based on patient characteristics. Future research should focus on addressing these gaps in knowledge to guide clinical decision-making and optimize outcomes for this patient population.

Indexed as

CannulaNoninvasive VentilationOxygen Inhalation TherapyPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAirway ExtubationHumansRespiratory InsufficiencyVentilator Weaning

Identifiers

PMID38568930
PMCPMC10990192
OpenAlexW4393900679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.