ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
Ward-delivered nasal high-flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation are safe for people with acute respiratory failure: a cohort study.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 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.
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula Outside the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Non-Invasive Ventilation Therapy Implementation in Medical Wards-A Scoping Review to Understand Hospitals' Protocols and Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWard-delivered non-invasive respiratory supports (NIRS) (conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV)), are often used to treat hospitalised patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) both in high acuity and general wards. This study aimed to describe the processes of care adopted and examine patient outcomes from a specialist, ward-delivered NIRS service caring for people with COVID-19 in general wards or in a respiratory care unit (RCU).
methodsA cohort study was undertaken including all consecutive patients admitted to a quaternary hospital with ARF secondary to COVID-19 and requiring ward-delivered NIRS between 28 February 2020 and 18 March 2022. NIRS use, processes of care and patient outcomes were examined.
resultsSix hundred sixty-eight patients were included, with 61% male and a mean age of 64 years (interquartile range 48-79 years). All received COT. Fifty eight percent of patients required additional NIRS: HFNO (36.2%), CPAP (19.8%) and NIV (1.9%). Eighty-two percent of patients had oxygen saturation targets documented. After the implementation of the RCU, significantly more nurse consultant-led CPAP prescriptions were initiated (P = 0.004) and fewer patients required review by the ICU team (P = 0.001) or transfer to ICU (P = 0.050). Forty-nine patients died (7.3%), with most (62.8%) being discharged directly home.
conclusionThis study highlights that ward-delivered NIRS is feasible and safe for people with COVID-19 and ARF. The combination of ward and RCU-delivered NIRS was particularly effective. Further research is required to determine the optimal models of respiratory care required for a broader range of patients and to understand how these should be implemented.
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.