ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Retrospective Propensity-Matched Comparison of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation Versus High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Reintubation Rates in Neurosurgical Intensive Care Patients.
Article in Neurocritical care, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the effectiveness of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in preventing reintubation among neurosurgical intensive care patients following extubation.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on neurosurgical ICU patients who received either NIPPV or HFNC after extubation. Propensity score matching was applied to balance baseline characteristics between the two groups. The primary outcome was reintubation rate, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate potential effect modifiers.
resultsAmong 202 matched patients, the overall reintubation event count was 48. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in cumulative reintubation rate between groups (log-rank p = 0.704). Cumulative reintubation rate at 168 h was 24.8% for NIPPV and 22.8% for HFNC. Cox regression demonstrated a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.51-1.58; p = 0.706) for HFNC compared with NIPPV. Subgroup analyses confirmed no significant effect modifications across various clinical variables. The exploratory analyses revealed that there was no significant difference in the reintubation rate between the prophylactic and the rescue NRS groups (prophylactic NRS: 25.0% vs. rescue NRS: 22.8%; p = 0.717).
conclusionsIn a retrospective study of neurosurgical intensive care patients, HFNC and NIPPV showed similar efficacy in preventing reintubation. Moreover, prophylactic and rescue NRS were not associated with reintubation. Prospective trials are needed to confirm treatment effects in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42115513What 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.