Trial reportAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2025
High Altitude Pulmonary Edema Response to Continuous Airway Positive Pressure: A Randomized Controlled Trial: The HAPER CAPER Trial.
Trial report in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04186598 (Multicenter Randomized Double-Blind Control Trial Evaluating the Utility of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Multicenter Randomized Double-Blind Control Trial Evaluating the Utility of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) in the Treatment of High Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMorbidity and mortality in cardiogenic pulmonary edema have been reduced by noninvasive positive-pressure airway maneuvers. The value of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and speed of CPAP for HAPE resolution.
methodsA prospective, investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled trial of high-flow oxygen with CPAP versus sham CPAP with high-flow oxygen (oxygen-only group) was conducted. Sixty-four dyspneic adults with maximum oxygen saturation < 85%, recent arrival at high altitude, and noncardiogenic pulmonary edema on chest radiography were randomized to receive CPAP treatment plus usual care or usual care (oxygen-only) delivered through a sham CPAP mask. The primary endpoint was the clinical resolution of HAPE.
resultsHAPE resolution in the CPAP plus high FiO
conclusionBoth CPAP with high-flow oxygen and high-flow oxygen alone are highly effective for the treatment of HAPE. CPAP conferred no improvement in the time to resolution of HAPE. High-flow oxygen therapy requires significantly less resource utilization for similar benefits in the treatment of HAPE.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04186598.
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.