ReviewAmerican journal of translational research2024
Influence of high-flow nasal cannulae on clinical outcomes in elderly patients with acute respiratory failure: a prognostic risk factor analysis.
Review in American journal of translational 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the clinical effects of high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) in elderly patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and analyze prognostic factors following oxygen therapy.
methodsWe enrolled 200 ARF patients between January 2022 and June 2023, dividing them into an observation group (n=125) treated with HFNC, and a control group (n=75) receiving conventional oxygen therapy. We compared vital signs before and after treatment and categorized patients into good and poor prognosis groups to analyze demographic data and prognostic factors.
resultsPost-treatment, both groups showed improved vital signs, with the observation group experiencing significantly greater improvements (P<0.05). However, the observation group had a higher incidence of complications compared to controls (P=0.001). Patients with a history of endotracheal intubation or high APACHE II scores were more prevalent in the poor prognosis group (both P<0.05). Logistic regression identified the APACHE II score as a risk factor for poor prognosis, while HFNC emerged as a protective factor.
conclusionsHFNC is a safe and effective therapy that improves vital signs and alleviates hypoxia in elderly ARF patients. The APACHE II score and type of oxygen therapy are significant prognostic factors, with HFNC offering a protective effect.
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.