Observational studyActa paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)2025
High-flow nasal cannula for stabilisation of very premature infants: A prospective observational study.
Observational study in Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2025. 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.
- Article
- High-flow nasal cannula for stabilisation of very premature infants: A prospective observational study.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2025Observational
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
Abstract
aimTo assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for stabilising very preterm infants after birth.
methodsA prospective observational study included preterm infants born at 28 + 0 to 31 + 6 weeks' gestation between February 2021 and December 2022 at the General University Hospital in Prague. Following delayed cord clamping, HFNC was administered at a flow rate of 8 L/min through the infants' nostrils. Criteria for switching to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or positive pressure ventilation (PPV) included persistent bradycardia in the first few minutes or low saturation of oxygen (SpO
resultsOf the 65 infants enrolled in the study, 56 (86%) were successfully stabilised exclusively using HFNC while 7 (11%) required PPV. Additionally, 52 (80%) infants achieved SpO
conclusionThe primary use of HFNC seems to be an appropriate alternative to CPAP for the stabilisation of very premature infants after birth and subsequent transfer to the NICU. A randomised trial comparing HFNC and CPAP in the delivery room will enable to answer the questions raised in this study.
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.