Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40417675›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Physiological effects of bi-level high-flow nasal cannula in healthy individuals: a proof of concept trial.

Jin Won Huh, Woo Jung Seo, Jee Hwan Ahn, Su Yeon Lee, Hee Jung Suh, Ga Jin Seo, Eun Young Kim, Min Kyung Jang, Chae-Man Lim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jin Won Huh *Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Woo Jung Seo *Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Republic of Korea.
Jee Hwan AhnDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Su Yeon LeeDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hee Jung SuhRespiratory Care Services, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ga Jin SeoRespiratory Care Services, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun Young KimRespiratory Care Services, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Min Kyung JangRespiratory Care Services, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chae-Man LimDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biflowconcept trialhigh flow nasal cannulapressure-time productrespiratory cycle

Identifiers

PMID40417675
PMCPMC12098088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.