ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Physiological effects of bi-level high-flow nasal cannula in healthy individuals: a proof of concept trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of an indigenously developed high-flow nasal cannula device in healthy human volunteers.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Computational tools for personalizing treatment of acute respiratory failure, from machine learning to digital twins: a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Bi-level HFNC: A promising approach for optimizing and individualize respiratory support?Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Commentary: Physiological effects of bi-level high-flow nasal cannula in healthy individuals: a proof of concept trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Physical and Physiological Mechanisms of Emergent Hydrodynamic Pressure in High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2025Review
- High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy: physiological basis and clinical applications in anesthesia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) delivers a continuous, unidirectional high flow of oxygen (Uniflow) throughout the respiratory cycle. Despite its positive pressure effects in the nasopharynx, the persistent high flow during expiration imposes additional work of breathing and disrupts the patient's neural respiratory cycle. We devised a bi-level high-flow system (Biflow) allowing separate flow rate adjustments for inspiration and expiration. Methods: We conducted a randomized crossover pilot study which we included healthy volunteer at ASAN Medical Center (April 2021 to June 2021). The data of 12 healthy volunteers (7 male, 5 female, average age 46.3 years) were analyzed. For Uniflow, flow settings of 30 (U30), 40 (U40), and 50 (U50) L/min were tested. In the Biflow, inspiratory flow rates were matched to the Uniflow settings, while expiratory flow rates varied from 10 to 30 L/min. The sequence of each flow (Uniflow vs. Biflow) was randomized and each flow setting was maintained for 3 min. Physiologic parameters, nasopharyngeal pressure-time product (N-PTP) as an energy cost proxy, end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), and participant comfort were assessed. Results: Uniflow decreased respiratory rate and elongated expiratory time compared to natural breathing. However, these effects were less pronounced during Biflow. Compared with the Uniflow, both expiratory and inspiratory N-PTP were lower during the Biflow. Transcutaneous CO Conclusion: In healthy participants, compared with the conventional HFNC (Uniflow), Biflow showed less interference with the natural respiratory cycle of the participants. Compared with Uniflow, energy cost occurring in the nasopharynx was lower during Biflow. Clinical trial registration: http://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/, identifier KCT0006100.
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.