Trial reportCritical care explorations2025
Effect of Single-Prong Cannula Design With High Velocity Therapy: Comparable Efficacy at Lower Gas Flow Rates.
Trial report in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectivesHigh velocity therapy (HVT), a form of high-flow oxygen therapy, utilizing a small-bore nasal cannula has been widely used in acute care settings. A new dual-prong (newDP) cannula made using more comfortable material and a single-prong (SP) cannula were evaluated to compare comfort and functionality as measured by relief of dyspnea of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving HVT therapy.
designRandomized crossover evaluation.
settingOutpatient and in patient critical care setting. PATIENTS: Patients with hypercapnic COPD presenting with dyspnea above baseline.
interventionsHVT therapy was provided using an existing HVT dual-prong nasal cannula (traditional) to determine the most efficacious flow rate. Patients were then randomized to receive either the newDP cannula, or the SP cannula, and retitrated for optimal flow rate. During each session of therapy, Rated Perceived Dyspnea (RPD) scores, vital signs, transcutaneous carbon dioxide partial pressure (PTCco2) levels, and clinician/ patient perceptions were documented. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf 31 enrolled, 26 patients completed the trial. The median flow rate that relieved dyspnea for the traditional, newDP, and SP cannulas were 25 L/min (20-30 L/min), 25 L/min (19.1-30 L/min), and 15 L/min (13-17 L/min), respectively. The change in RPD from baseline for traditional, newDP, and SP were -1 (-1 to 0), -1 (-2 to -1), and -1 (-2 to -1). Change in RPD from baseline for newDP and SP compared with the traditional cannula was significantly different (p = 0.044 and p = 0.01, respectively). Changes in vital signs and PTCco2 were similar between the three cannula types compared with baseline. The SP cannula provided comparable therapeutic efficacy at significantly lower flow rates (traditional vs. SP; p < 0.0001 and newDP vs. SP; p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe new cannula designs provided comparable relief of dyspnea. The single-prong cannula provided comparable efficacy at significantly lower flow rates (traditional vs. SP; p < 0.0001 and newDP vs. SP; p < 0.0001). The use of a single-prong cannula with HVT warrants further 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.