ArticlePeerJ2025
Design and simulation-based evaluation of a novel tracheostomy high-flow therapy device interface: a preclinical study.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-flow tracheal oxygen (HFTO) does not generate significant positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), which may limit its clinical applicability. We designed a novel high-flow tracheal interface (nHFTI) and compared the PEEP and other respiratory parameters it generated with those of the traditional high-flow tracheal interface (tHFTI) across a range of flow rates. Methods: We conducted a randomized crossover bench study. A size 8 cuffed tracheostomy tube was connected to the high-flow therapy (HFT) device using two different interfaces. A high-fidelity lung simulator was used to model normal lung mechanics. Gas flow rates were set from 10 to 80 L/min at a gradient of 10 L/min, and the sequence was randomized. At each flow setting, the following parameters were recorded: PEEP, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), peak expiratory pressure (PEP), end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure (Ptp-EI), end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Ptp-EE), end-inspiratory cardiac pressure (PEIC) and end-expiratory cardiac pressure (PEEC), functional residual capacity (FRC), tidal volume (Vt) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO Results: As the HFT flow rate increased, PEEP increased significantly with both the tHFTI and nHFTI ( Conclusions: The nHFTI generated a modest level of PEEP, increased FRC and slightly reduced Vt at flow rates of 40-60 L/min. This physiological profile suggests potential for maintaining lung expansion and improving cardiac function in heart failure. Further
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.