ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- High-flow Nasal Cannula Over Non-invasive Ventilation in Preventing Reintubation: Signal Bias or Both?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
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
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading cause of ICU admissions, and noninvasive respiratory support modalities such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are frequently employed. However, the comparative effectiveness of these two interventions across different patient populations remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to synthesize current evidence comparing HFNC and NIV in the management of adult patients with AHRF, focusing on outcomes such as intubation rates, mortality, patient comfort, oxygenation, and complications. Studies were included if they: (1) were primary research articles, (2) involved human adults with AHRF, (3) directly compared HFNC with NIV, and (4) reported on clinical outcomes. Systematic reviews, case reports, editorials, and studies focused exclusively on immunocompromised or postoperative populations were excluded. A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE (via Ovid), and the Cochrane Library was conducted through February 2025. Three independent reviewers screened and selected studies using Rayyan. Data extraction was performed using a structured template capturing study design, sample size, population, intervention details, and relevant outcomes. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. HFNC and NIV demonstrated comparable effectiveness in reducing intubation rates across most patient populations. In COVID-19-associated AHRF, the two modalities yielded similar outcomes in terms of intubation and mortality. HFNC was consistently associated with greater patient comfort and fewer complications, particularly with respect to interface tolerance and skin breakdown. However, NIV remained more effective in clearing carbon dioxide, especially in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure, such as those with COPD exacerbations. ORs were infrequently reported; however, one study reported an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.58-0.98) favoring HFNC over oxygen masks for ICU mortality. HFNC may be preferable for patients who have difficulty tolerating masks or are at lower risk for hypercapnia, while NIV remains the standard of care in hypercapnic respiratory failure. Mortality outcomes were inconclusive. Future randomized controlled trials should target specific patient subgroups and examine long-term outcomes and hospital resource utilization to optimize noninvasive respiratory support strategies in AHRF.
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.