The Effect of Intermittent Use of Oxygen Therapy via High-Flow Nasal Cannula Alternating with Noninvasive Ventilation on Critically Ill Patients.

Seyed Mohammadreza Hashemian, Hamidreza Jamaati, Navid Shafigh, Sara Salarian, Alireza Shakeri, Mohammad Gharehbeglou, Jamshid Ordoni Avval

Abstract read

PubMed Full text at PMC

In one paragraph

Article in Tanaffos, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Seyed Mohammadreza HashemianChronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Hamidreza JamaatiChronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Navid ShafighDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Sara SalarianDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Critical Care Quality Improvement Research Center, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Alireza ShakeriAnesthesiology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Mohammad GharehbeglouDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Jamshid Ordoni AvvalDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Science, Zahedan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite limited research on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) alternating with noninvasive ventilation (NIV), this study investigates its effect on intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Materials and Methods: This clinical trial study at Masih Deneshvari Hospital (Tehran) compared NIV vs. alternating NIV with HFNC for ICU patients. It assessed intubation, mortality, and vitals. Patients were informed, and nurses were trained for optimal care. Daily follow-up ensured data collection. Results: The mean age of the patients was 66.3±19.7 years, which was 67.1±14.8 years in the NIV group and 65.5±14.9 years in the HFNC+NIV group, respectively. The distribution of patients in terms of APACHE and symptoms showed no significant difference (P=0.453). The mean HR in the two groups, NIV and HFNC+NIV, before the study was 113.30±5.25 and 112.43±5.80, respectively. At the end of the study, it was 94.78±17.53 and 94.48±17.47, respectively, with no significant difference found between the two groups. The mean RR before the beginning of this study was not significantly different between the two groups, while it was 16.61±4.23 and 17.91±1.78 in the NIV and HFNC+NIV groups, respectively, at the end of the study (P=0.043). PO Conclusion: Based on the findings presented in our study, no difference was found between the use of NIV and NIV + HFNC, but HFNC + NIV was a more tolerable technique for patients.

Indexed as

High-flow nasal cannulaIntensive Care UnitsNoninvasive mechanical ventilation

Identifiers

PMID42027968

PMCPMC13101918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.