Observational studyMedicine2025
Epidemiologic evaluation of pediatric patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula therapy in the pediatric emergency department.
Observational study in Medicine, 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.
- Tools for Monitoring Respiratory Distress in Heated Humidified High-flow Nasal Cannula in Children: How do We Score the Scores?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy has emerged as an important method of respiratory support in the pediatric emergency department (ED), but its optimal use and factors affecting success require further investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnosis and treatment response of patients receiving HFNC therapy in the pediatric ED and to investigate the factors affecting the success of HFNC therapy. This retrospective, cross-sectional study analyzed the data of 415 patients admitted to the Pediatric ED of the Istanbul Medical Faculty from 2021 to 2022 who received HFNC therapy. Treatment failure was defined as the required noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation. Diagnoses were confirmed by examination findings, radiological imaging, laboratory tests and other hospital admissions. Respiratory disease was diagnosed in 88.2% of patients. The most common diagnoses were bronchiolitis (48%), pneumonia (23.6%), asthma (9.6%), reactive airway disease (5.8%), and heart failure (4.8%). Among the patients, 55.4% were admitted to the pediatric service, 28% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 8.7% were discharged, and 7.7% left the ED with a referral to an external center. HFNC therapy ended with symptom regression in 63.9% of patients, transition to NIV in 25.8%, and intubation in 4.3%. Although patients did not respond to HFNC therapy at 0 to 1 hour, a HFNC response was observed in almost half of the patients in the following periods. The presence of chronic disease and abnormal chest radiography findings were found to be independent risk factors for treatment failure, whereas the presence of allergic disease and the duration of HFNC therapy were found to be protective factors. HFNC therapy was effective in most pediatric patients with respiratory distress. Clinicians should consider extending HFNC therapy beyond the first hour in initial nonresponders, as significant improvement may occur in the following hours. Chronic disease and abnormal chest radiography findings were independent risk factors for failure of HFNC therapy. Conversely, allergic disease and longer HFNC duration were protective. Clinical and laboratory parameters should be considered when evaluating the efficacy of HFNC therapy. Therefore, patients should be evaluated individually, and treatment should be planned.
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.