Observational studyPloS one2024
Noninvasive vs invasive respiratory support for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Observational study in PloS one, 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.
- Development and evaluation of an ontology for non-invasive respiratory support in acute care.PloS one · 2026Article
- Physical and Physiological Mechanisms of Emergent Hydrodynamic Pressure in High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNoninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation.
methodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow.
resultsDuring the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35-1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92-2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43-7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25-3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92-2.74).
conclusionsThese data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.
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.