Trial reportCritical care science2025
Early weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation via high-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional weaning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Critical care science, 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.
- The effects of starter feed on intestinal fungi and non-targeted metabolomics of blood in calf yaks.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- High-flow nasal cannula in the real world: powerful support, hidden severity.Critical care science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough the efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in delaying or avoiding intubation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure has been studied, its potential for facilitating early weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation remains unexplored.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 80 adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for > 48 hours were enrolled and divided into two groups: conventional weaning and early weaning via high-flow nasal oxygen. In the conventional weaning group, the spontaneous breathing trial was performed after the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was ≥ 200, whereas in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, the spontaneous breathing trial was conducted earlier when the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 150 - 200. Following each successful spontaneous breathing trial, patients were extubated and put on oxygen supplementation via a venturi mask or high-flow nasal oxygen on the basis of their group allocation. The primary objective was to compare extubation failure (reintubation within 48 hours). The secondary objectives were to compare total invasive mechanical ventilation, oxygen requirement and sedation requirement days, ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence, invasive mechanical ventilation-free days, intensive care unit length of stay, and intensive care unit all-cause mortality.
resultsExtubation failure was not significantly different between the high-flow nasal oxygen group and the conventional weaning group [12.5% versus 25%, respectively; odds ratio (95%CI) 0.5 (0.19 - 1.33)] (p = 0.25). Early weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation via high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with significantly increased invasive mechanical ventilation-free days and total oxygen requirement days (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01, respectively). No significant between-group differences were observed in total invasive mechanical ventilation days, ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence, intensive care unit length of stay, sedation duration, or all-cause mortality.
conclusionAmong patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, early extubation with high-flow nasal oxygen is a feasible and superior alternative to the conventional method of weaning, as it increases the number of invasive mechanical ventilation-free days.
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.