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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- A comparative analysis of non-invasive respiratory support modalities in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Article
- Management of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with high-flow nasal cannula therapy: A narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- Impact of relaxation training and sedative medication use on respiratory recovery in hospitalized patients with respiratory diseases: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- PaCOFrontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- 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
- Review
- Comparison of Effects of Postextubation Noninvasive Ventilation with Passive Humidification and High-flow Nasal Cannula in Patients with High Risk of Extubation Failure: A Randomized Comparative Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care MedicineArticle
- The Saudi Thoracic Society Evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.