ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine
Comparison of Heated Humidified High-flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation in Children with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Using Clinical Respiratory Score: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. 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.
- Beyond High-flow Nasal Cannula vs Non-invasive Ventilation: The Need for Dynamic Physiological Monitoring in Pediatric Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and background: Comparative data on the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in children are limited. This study aims to address this gap by comparing the modalities using the clinical respiratory score (CRS) and factors that predict failure. Patients and methods: This prospective observational study was conducted in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a tertiary care hospital over a period of 20 months. Children (2-18 years) admitted to PICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring HFNC or NIV were eligible. Multiorgan dysfunction, hemodynamic instability, intubation within 2 hours, cyanotic congenital heart disease, craniofacial malformations, chronic lung diseases, neuromuscular diseases, and upper airway obstruction were exclusions. Children were allocated to either HFNC or NIV therapy at the clinician's discretion. The severity of respiratory distress was assessed using CRS at baseline, 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours. Escalation of therapy was considered a treatment failure. Results: A total of 59 children were enrolled in the study and categorized into HFNC ( Conclusion: There was no significant difference in treatment failures between the two groups. Noninvasive ventilation demonstrated early respiratory improvement, while HFNC was not inferior in the long term. Lower CRS at initiation and improvement at 2 hours were predictive of treatment success. Clinical significance: Stringent bedside monitoring during the initial hours of noninvasive respiratory support is critical, along with an individualized approach for choice of modality to improve the chances of success of HFNC and NIV. How to cite this article: Kadappanavar TR, Ravikumar N, Ramu SA. Comparison of Heated Humidified High-flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation in Children with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Using Clinical Respiratory Score: A Prospective Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2026;30(5):414-419.
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.