Scholarlink

Background <p>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are widely used noninvasive respiratory support modalities in COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, comparative data on their effectiveness and safety remain limited.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a retrospective observational study involving 50 patients with COVID-19-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, with 25 patients receiving HFNC and 25 receiving NIV. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, physiological responses, and safety events were analyzed.</p> Results <p>Despite the NIV group having more severe baseline illness—including higher APACHE II scores, greater comorbidity burden, and lower initial SpO₂—there were no significant differences between groups in in-hospital mortality (<i>P</i> = 0.248), ICU and hospital length of stay, or need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Although post-therapy respiratory rate and serum lactate levels were lower in the HFNC group, the magnitude of change from baseline did not differ significantly between groups. Safety outcomes, including sedation needs, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, pneumothorax, and surgical emphysema, were similar between groups.</p> Conclusion <p>HFNC and NIV were associated with similar observed clinical and safety outcomes in COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure, However, interpretation is limited by baseline imbalances between groups, potential confounding by indication, and the relatively small sample size. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and warrant validation in larger, well-designed prospective studies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective observational study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月1日

查看全文
  • Ahmed Saied Abdelmohsen,
  • Mahmoud Mohamed Emam,
  • Khaled M. Taema,
  • Hossam Hosni Masoud,
  • Soliman Belal

摘要

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are widely used noninvasive respiratory support modalities in COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, comparative data on their effectiveness and safety remain limited.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study involving 50 patients with COVID-19-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, with 25 patients receiving HFNC and 25 receiving NIV. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, physiological responses, and safety events were analyzed.

Results

Despite the NIV group having more severe baseline illness—including higher APACHE II scores, greater comorbidity burden, and lower initial SpO₂—there were no significant differences between groups in in-hospital mortality (P = 0.248), ICU and hospital length of stay, or need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Although post-therapy respiratory rate and serum lactate levels were lower in the HFNC group, the magnitude of change from baseline did not differ significantly between groups. Safety outcomes, including sedation needs, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, pneumothorax, and surgical emphysema, were similar between groups.

Conclusion

HFNC and NIV were associated with similar observed clinical and safety outcomes in COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure, However, interpretation is limited by baseline imbalances between groups, potential confounding by indication, and the relatively small sample size. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and warrant validation in larger, well-designed prospective studies.