ReviewJournal of intensive medicine2025
Physiological effects and clinical evidence of high-flow nasal cannula during acute exacerbation in COPD patients: A narrative review.
Review in Journal of intensive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Physiological Outcomes.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing Respiratory Support in COPD Patients with Nasal High Flow Using an Asymmetrical Cannula Interface: A Randomized Cross-Over Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Trial
- High-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Practice of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients with Mild to Moderate COPD Among Healthcare Providers in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Dislodged Denture in a Patient on High-flow Nasal Cannula: A Rare Mechanical Complication.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. During severe exacerbations, COPD patients may develop acute respiratory failure (ARF), often necessitating hospital admission due to impaired gas exchange. In COPD patients, the diaphragm is subjected to an increased workload resulting from airflow limitations and geometric changes in the thorax due to pulmonary hyperinflation. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) plays a crucial role in managing type II ARF by improving alveolar ventilation, reducing the work of breathing, minimizing the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI), and decreasing both hospital stays and mortality rates. Studies have shown that approximately 64% of patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) may fail NIV, primarily due to worsening respiratory function, interface intolerance, cardiovascular instability, or neurological deterioration. For patients intolerant to NIV, a trial with a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is recommended. Recently, HFNC has gained popularity as a novel respiratory support system and is increasingly used in routine clinical practice for AECOPD patients. It delivers warmed, humidified, and oxygen-enriched air through a nasal cannula at flow rates of up to 60 L/min. This narrative review aims to describe the physiological effects of HFNC in the COPD population and provide an updated overview of HFNC's role in AECOPD patients requiring hospitalization.
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.