ReviewJournal of intensive medicine2024
Hygrometry behavior during high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation: A narrative review of bench to clinical studies.
Review in Journal of intensive medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients: strategies for respiratory support and complication management.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Management of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with high-flow nasal cannula therapy: A narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- High-flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen vs Non-invasive Ventilation with Passive Humidification: Are We Comparing Like with Like?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, there has been growing interest in knowing the best hygrometry level during high-flow nasal oxygen and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and its potential influence on the outcome. Various studies have shown that breathing cold and dry air results in excessive water loss by nasal mucosa, reduced mucociliary clearance, increased airway resistance, reduced epithelial cell function, increased inflammation, sloughing of tracheal epithelium, and submucosal inflammation. With the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, using high-flow nasal oxygen with a heated humidifier has become an emerging form of non-invasive support among clinicians. However, we cannot always assume stable humidification. Similarly, there are no clear guidelines for using humidification during NIV, although humidification of inspired gas during invasive ventilation is an accepted standard of care. NIV disturbs the normal physiological system that warms and humidifies inspired gases. If NIV is supplied through an intensive care unit ventilator that utilizes anhydrous gases from compressed wall air and oxygen, the risk of dryness increases. In addition, patients with acute respiratory failure tend to breathe through the mouth during NIV, which is a less efficient route than nasal breathing for adding heat and moisture to the inspired gas. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome is one of the most important indications for chronic use of NIV at home. Available data suggest that up to 60% of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome who use continuous positive airway pressure therapy experience nasal congestion and dryness of the mouth and nose. Therefore, humidifying the inspired gas in NIV may be essential for patient comfort and compliance with treatment. We aimed to review the available bench and clinical studies that addressed the utility of hygrometry in NIV and nasal high-flow oxygen and discuss the technical limitations of different humidification systems for both systems.
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.