SynthesisCritical care explorations2026
High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation for Prevention of Reintubation in High-Risk Critically Ill Patients (HIGH-FLOW OXY): An Informative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care explorations, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOptimal postextubation respiratory support for critically ill patients at high risk of reintubation remains uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs. noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in preventing reintubation among critically ill adults at high risk of extubation failure. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception through the latest available date. STUDY SELECTION: HIGH-FLOW OXY is a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing HFNC with NIV in ICU patients at high risk of extubation failure. The primary outcome was short-term reintubation within 3 days postextubation. Secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, sepsis, and nosocomial pneumonia. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted using predefined criteria. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Random-effects models were used for pooled analyses. Prespecified subgroup analyses included obese patients, very high-risk patients, elderly individuals, and those with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 2073) were included. HFNC and NIV did not differ significantly in reintubation (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.88-1.59), ICU mortality (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.38), sepsis (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.71-2.35), nosocomial pneumonia (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.67-1.52), or ICU length of stay (MD -0.37 d; 95% CI, -1.42 to 0.68). Subgroup analyses suggested a higher reintubation risk with HFNC among very high-risk patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.05-2.53) and nonoperative obese patients (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.45-4.38). Sensitivity analysis excluding trials at high RoB indicated a potential increase in reintubation with HFNC (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02-1.71). Overall, certainty of evidence was low across outcomes.
conclusionsAmong ICU patients at high risk of extubation failure, HFNC did not reduce reintubation compared with NIV, and may be associated with increased risk in selected high-risk subgroups. Further adequately powered, risk-stratified RCTs are warranted to define the optimal postextubation respiratory support strategy.
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.