Trial reportCritical care medicine2026
Physiological Effects of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy: A Randomized Trial in Postextubation Patients.
Trial report in Critical care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05652699 (High Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Re-evaluated from a Conceptual Point of View), 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.
High Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Re-evaluated from a Conceptual Point of View: Effect on Respiratory Effort and Lung Aeration After Extubation
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the physiologic effects of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on respiratory effort and ventilation distribution in the first 24 hours postextubation.
settingTwo ICUs in The Netherlands ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT05652699). PATIENTS: Adult patients invasively ventilated for greater than or equal to 48 hours were included after meeting weaning readiness criteria. The main exclusion criteria were do-not-reintubate orders and contraindications for esophageal pressure (P ES ) catheter insertion.
interventionsRandomization between HFNO and COT for 24 hours postextubation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsP ES measurements and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) were performed before extubation and up to 24 hours postextubation. The primary endpoint was the change in ΔP ES at 24 hours postextubation as compared with baseline. The secondary endpoints were simplified P ES pressure-time-product (sPTP ES ) and EIT-derived ventilation parameters postextubation. After 42 of 54 targeted patients were included, inclusion was stopped because of slow recruitment. The 24-hour study protocol was completed without crossover in 20 of 22 patients (91%) receiving HFNO and in 11 of 20 patients (55%) receiving COT. At 24 hours postextubation, the change in ∆P ES from baseline was 1.5 (0.0; 5.1) and -1.3 cm H 2 O (-2.8; 2.2) in the COT and HFNO groups, respectively ( p = 0.11). The change in sPTP ES /min was 66 (-7; 111) and 0 cm H 2 O·s/min (-47; 43) in the COT and HFNO groups, respectively ( p = 0.04). Baseline ∆P ES and sPTP ES correlated inversely with ∆P ES and sPTP ES postextubation (∆P ESr = -0.6, p < 0.01, and sPTP ES /min r = -0.6, p < 0.01) in the HFNO group but not the COT group ( p > 0.05). There were no relevant differences in the EIT-derived ventilation parameters.
conclusionsThere was no difference between HFNO and COT on respiratory effort and ventilation distribution in the first 24 hours postextubation. Measures of respiratory effort were numerically but not always statistically lower in the HFNO group compared with the COT group.
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.