| Title |
High-flow nasal cannula to prevent postextubation respiratory failure in high-risk non-hypercapnic patients: a randomized multicenter trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-017-0270-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rafael Fernandez, Carles Subira, Fernando Frutos-Vivar, Gemma Rialp, Cesar Laborda, Joan Ramon Masclans, Amanda Lesmes, Luna Panadero, Gonzalo Hernandez |
| Abstract |
Extubation failure is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but cannot be safely predicted or avoided. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) prevents postextubation respiratory failure in low-risk patients. To demonstrate that HFNC reduces postextubation respiratory failure in high-risk non-hypercapnic patients compared with conventional oxygen. Randomized, controlled multicenter trial in patients who passed a spontaneous breathing trial. We enrolled patients meeting criteria for high-risk of failure to randomly receive HFNC or conventional oxygen for 24 h after extubation. Primary outcome was respiratory failure within 72-h postextubation. Secondary outcomes were reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, and mortality. Statistical analysis included multiple logistic regression models. The study was stopped due to low recruitment after 155 patients were enrolled (78 received high-flow and 77 received conventional oxygen). Groups were similar at enrollment, and all patients tolerated 24-h HFNC. Postextubation respiratory failure developed in 16 (20%) HFNC patients and in 21 (27%) conventional patients [OR 0.69 (0.31-1.54), p = 0.2]. Reintubation was needed in 9 (11%) HFNC patients and in 12 (16%) conventional patients [OR 0.71 (0.25-1.95), p = 0.5]. No difference was found in ICU or hospital length of stay, or mortality. Logistic regression models suggested HFNC [OR 0.43 (0.18-0.99), p = 0.04] and cancer [OR 2.87 (1.04-7.91), p = 0.04] may be independently associated with postextubation respiratory failure. Our study is inconclusive as to a potential benefit of HFNC over conventional oxygen to prevent occurrence of respiratory failure in non-hypercapnic patients at high risk for extubation failure. Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01820507. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 24% |
| Spain | 5 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 116 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 28 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,463,990
of 24,066,486 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#315
of 1,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,072
of 314,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,066,486 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.