Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
High flow nasal cannula in the emergency department's resuscitation room: a prospective monocenter descriptive study.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is commonly used in emergency departments (EDs) to treat acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, its utilization patterns in the resuscitation room (RR) are not well documented. The aim of this study was to describe patient characteristics, management, and in-hospital trajectories according to HFNC use.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, monocenter, cohort study of consecutive adults admitted to the RR with ARF requiring ≥ 9 L/min of oxygen. We recorded demographic data, comorbidities, clinical and biological parameters, imaging results, treatments, and final ED diagnoses. Patients were classified according to HFNC initiation in the RR. We described clinical pathways through a structured flow diagram that included ICU admission, escalation of respiratory support and in-hospital mortality.
resultsAmong 165 patients, 57 (35%) received HFNC and 108 (65%) did not. Patients receiving HFNC were younger (73 [59; 86] vs. 77 [70;87] years old) and had a lower Charlson index (5 [3; 7] vs. 7 [5; 9]). Median NEWS2 score at admission was 8 [6; 9] in both groups. Infectious pneumonia was the primary ED diagnosis in 84% of HFNC patients (48/57) and 53% of non-HFNC patients (57/108). Cardiogenic pulmonary oedema accounted for 5% (3/57) vs. 21% (23/108), respectively. ICU admission occurred in 39 (68%) of HFNC patients and 40 (37%) of non-HFNC patients. Intubation was performed in 3 (5.3%) vs. 10 (9.3%). In-hospital mortality was 12/57 (21%) in the HFNC group and 35/108 (33%) in the non-HFNC group.
conclusionPatients who receive HFNC therapy in the RR are younger and healthier than those who do not, regardless of the initial severity of acute respiratory failure ARF. The probability of receiving HFNC seems to be linked to the patient’s burden of comorbidities. Further study should explore its impact on patient outcomes. CLINICAL
trial registrationNone.
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.