ArticleScientific reports2026
High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation(NIV) are commonly used for hypoxemic respiratory failure, but their comparative efficacy remains unclear. This prospective cohort study enrolled 259 non-hypercapnic hypoxemic respiratory failure patients (PaO₂ <60 mmHg, PaCO₂ <50 mmHg, pH ≥ 7.30) in a Chinese ICU. Patients were allocated to HFNC (n = 128) or NIV (n = 131) based on physician judgment. Primary outcome was 28-day intubation rate; secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, treatment withdrawal, and ICU/hospital stay duration. Baseline characteristics were similar except for higher respiratory/heart rates and disease severity in the NIV group. Before adjustment, the HFNC group had a lower intubation rate (P < 0.05) and fewer events of death or treatment withdrawal(P<0.01). After propensity score matching, all group differences became non-significant: intubation(aOR 2.61,95%CI 0.58-11.68,P = 0.21), hospital mortality (aOR 0.91,95%CI 0.31-2.62,P = 0.86),death or withdrawing treatment༈aOR 0.54,95%CI 0.26-1.13,P = 0.10),and the composite endpoint (aOR = 1.14,95%CI 0.42-3.08, P = 0.80).The durations of ICU stay (8 vs. 8 days, P = 0.87) and hospital stay (13 vs. 12 days, P = 0.10) showed no significant differences both before and after matching.Patients transitioning from HFNC to NIV had longer ICU stays than NIV-only patients (12 vs. 8 days, P < 0.05). Outcomes did not differ between HFNC-failure patients transitioning to NIV or intubation (P > 0.05). HFNC and NIV show similar efficacy in preventing intubation and reducing mortality. NIV may shorten ICU stay in severe cases, but escalation to NIV or intubation after HFNC failure does not improve outcomes. Treatment should be individualized based on disease severity and patient response. However, given the non-randomized design and potential for residual confounding despite multivariate adjustment, these findings should be interpreted with caution and require validation in randomized controlled trials.
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.