Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2026
Prophylactic high-flow nasal oxygen vs. conventional oxygen for prevention of postoperative respiratory complications: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 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
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are a major cause of morbidity after lung resection, particularly in older adults. Following extubation, noninvasive respiratory support strategies are increasingly used to prevent respiratory deterioration, but the role of prophylactic high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in this setting remains uncertain.
methodsIn this single-center, open-label randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy or segmentectomy for stage I-IIIa non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized to HFNC or conventional oxygen therapy (COT). The primary outcome was PPC severity during hospitalization, analyzed using ordinal logistic regression; the incidence of clinically relevant PPCs (grade ≥ 2) was also compared between groups. Secondary outcomes included longitudinal respiratory symptoms (mMRC, LCQ-MC, sCSS) and symptom-related functional interference (MDASI-LC), analyzed using mixed-effects models.
resultsA total of 210 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (HFNC, n = 104; COT, n = 106). HFNC reduced PPC severity (ordinal OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91; P = 0.022) and moderate-to-severe PPCs (23.1% vs. 39.6%; absolute risk difference, -15.6%; 95% CI, -28.0% to -3.2%; P = 0.010). HFNC was associated with a lower burden of clinically relevant PPCs. Secondary analyses also suggested improvements in early postoperative respiratory symptoms and symptom-related functional interference. Secondary analyses also suggested improvements in early postoperative respiratory symptoms and symptom-related functional interference. No differences were observed in physiological outcomes or length of stay.
conclusionIn older adults undergoing lung resection, prophylactic HFNC reduced in-hospital PPC burden and was associated with more favorable early postoperative respiratory recovery. These findings suggest that prophylactic HFNC may provide benefit as a potential preventive respiratory support option in selected older or higher-risk postoperative patients, although routine prophylactic use in all patients undergoing lung resection is not supported by the present findings.
trial registrationThis study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200063161) on 01 Sep 2022 and the first patient was enrolled after pre-registration.
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.