ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
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.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating validated scores with clinical parameters to predict NIV weaning outcomes: a prospective study in the respiratory ICU.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Management of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with high-flow nasal cannula therapy: A narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) frequently present with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF). While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) remains the fist-line therapy, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) offers a potential alternative. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared the clinical effectiveness and safety of HFNC versus NIV as initial respiratory support in 100 consecutive patients with AECOPD and AHRF (PaCO2 > 45 mmHg, pH 7.25-7.35). Patients were categorized into HFNC and NIV groups based on the respiratory support initiated within the first 2 h of admission. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as intubation, switch from one non-invasive respiratory support to another or death under NIRS. Secondary outcomes included respiratory rate (RR), arterial blood gas parameters, length of stay, and duration of respiratory support. Results: Treatment failure rates were comparable between the HFNC (32%) and NIV (35%) groups ( Conclusion: This study suggests similar overall treatment success rates for HFNC and NIV in AECOPD with AHRF. However, NIV appears more effective in achieving early respiratory improvements, whereas HFNC offers superior tolerability. Further large-scale, prospective, randomized controlled trials are warranted to definitively establish optimal respiratory support strategies for this patient population.
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.