ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2026
Feeding practices during high-flow nasal cannula: current evidence and clinical implications for respiratory care.
Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is increasingly used as a noninvasive respiratory support modality across acute and critical care settings. Although nutritional management is integral to the care of patients with respiratory failure, established guidelines for feeding patients receiving HFNC are lacking, and clinical decisions vary widely, reflecting persistent uncertainty about HFNC's effects on swallowing function, airway protection, and aspiration risk. This narrative review found that HFNC may alter swallowing biomechanics, particularly at flow rates >40 L/min, potentially increasing the risk of choking and aspiration. Evidence on aspiration risk is heterogeneous, deriving largely from healthy volunteers and pediatric bronchiolitis cohorts. Adult evidence is limited to retrospective studies; the largest found no increase in respiratory deterioration with enteral feeding. Most institutions lack formal feeding protocols, and practice is driven by individual clinician judgment. Areas of consensus include the safety of early enteral feeding in hemodynamically stable patients and the avoidance of routine prolonged withholding of nutrition based solely on HFNC use. Disagreement persists regarding routine swallowing assessment, optimal flow thresholds during feeding, and the prioritization of oral versus tube feeding. Safe feeding in patients receiving HFNC requires a multidisciplinary, individualized approach that balances respiratory support against nutritional adequacy. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to define safe flow thresholds, validate bedside assessment tools, and establish standardized feeding guidelines, particularly in adult and critically ill populations.
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.