ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Non-Invasive Ventilation for Post-Extubation Respiratory Support After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Cohorts.
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.
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
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) are commonly used for respiratory support after extubation in pediatric cardiac surgery. This study aimed to compare their clinical effectiveness and safety. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies published from January 2015 to June 2025 was performed. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Six observational studies with a total of 1,142 pediatric patients were included. The primary outcomes were re-intubation rate, escalation of respiratory support, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. The meta-analysis indicated that HFNC was associated with similar or lower re-intubation rates compared with NIV (pooled odds ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.08; p = 0.19; I² = 42%). Escalation of support occurred less frequently with HFNC in most studies. ICU and hospital stays were comparable or slightly shorter in the HFNC group, suggesting potential benefits in comfort and recovery. Risk of bias across included studies was generally low to moderate. The findings support the clinical equivalence of HFNC and NIV for post-extubation respiratory management in pediatric cardiac patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that high-flow nasal cannula may be a practical and effective alternative to non-invasive ventilation in this population. Further large multicenter studies are recommended to validate these results and evaluate long-term outcomes.
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.