Trial reportEuropean journal of medical research2025
A comparison of conventional high-flow nasal cannula vs the duet high-flow nasal cannula in extubated patients: a randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06398951 (A Comparison of Conventional High Flow Nasal Cannula vs Two-nare Size High Flow Nasal Cannula), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Comparison of Conventional High Flow Nasal Cannula vs Two-nare Size High Flow Nasal Cannula: A Randomized Crossover Trial in Extubated Patients
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHigh-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) are often used for oxygen delivery in intensive care units (ICU). A new configuration HNFC, the Duet HFNC, can deliver higher pressures and potentially improve gas exchange. The clinical performance, safety and patient comfort of these Duet cannula are unclear. Furthermore, there is no data on performance of conventional or Duet HFNC in patients with nasogastric tubes (NG) or between male and female patients. We compared the gas exchange, tolerance, and comfort with conventional and Duet HFNC. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: This single-center, open labeled randomized crossover study included invasively ventilated patients who were extubated. Patients were randomized to protocol A (n = 25; Duet cannula for 30 min followed by conventional HFNC for 30 min) or protocol B (n = 25; conventional followed by Duet HFNC). Subgroup analysis included comparisons between patients with and without a NG, and between male and female patients when receiving Duet and conventional HFNC. During the study period the HFNCs flow rates were set at 40 L/min with the same FiO
resultsThere was no significant difference in PaO
conclusionDuet HFNC is comparable to conventional HFNC. Further studies on higher flow rates and for longer period are warranted to determine the utility of Duet cannula. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Number: NCT06398951) on 3rd May 2024- Retrospectively registered.
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.