The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Studies of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients that combine populations that are at high and low risk for reintubation suggest that conditioned high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy after extubation improves oxygenation compared with conventional oxygen therapy. However, conclusive data about reintubation are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy for preventing reintubation in mechanically ventilated patients at low risk for reintubation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted between September 2012 and October 2014 in 7 intensive care units (ICUs) in Spain. Participants were 527 adult critical patients at low risk for reintubation who fulfilled criteria for planned extubation. Low risk for reintubation was defined as younger than 65 years; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score less than 12 on day of extubation; body mass index less than 30; adequate secretions management; simple weaning; 0 or 1 comorbidity; and absence of heart failure, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to undergo either high-flow or conventional oxygen therapy for 24 hours after extubation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was reintubation within 72 hours, compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 test. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis and multiorgan failure, ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation. RESULTS: Of 527 patients (mean age, 51 years [range, 18-64]; 62% men), 264 received high-flow therapy and 263 conventional oxygen therapy. Reintubation within 72 hours was less common in the high-flow group (13 patients [4.9%] vs 32 [12.2%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 7.2% [95% CI, 2.5% to 12.2%]; P = .004). Postextubation respiratory failure was less common in the high-flow group (22/264 patients [8.3%] vs 38/263 [14.4%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 0.7% to 11.6%]; P = .03). Time to reintubation was not significantly different between groups (19 hours [interquartile range, 12-28] in the high-flow group vs 15 hours [interquartile range, 9-31] in the conventional group; absolute difference, -4 [95% CI, -54 to 46]; P = .66]. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among extubated patients at low risk for reintubation, the use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen compared with conventional oxygen therapy reduced the risk of reintubation within 72 hours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191489.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
Frat, J.-P., Thille, A. W., Mercat, A., Girault, C., Ragot, S., Perbet, S., Prat, G., Boulain, T., Morawiec, E., Cottereau, A., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1503326 · Cited by 2,342
Peñuelas, O., Frutos-Vivar, F., Fernández, C., Anzueto, A., Epstein, S. K., Apezteguía, C., González, M., Nin, N., Raymondos, K., Tomicic, V., et al. (2011) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201011-1887oc · Cited by 350
Self-citation
Cited by
Physiologic Effects of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
Mauri, T., Turrini, C., Eronia, N., Grasselli, G., Volta, C. A., Bellani, G., & Pesenti, A. (2017) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201605-0916oc · Cited by 641
Ouellette, D. R., Patel, S., Girard, T. D., Morris, P. E., Schmidt, G. A., Truwit, J. D., Alhazzani, W., Burns, S. M., Epstein, S. K., Esteban, A., et al. (2017) · Chest · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.036 · Cited by 432
Rochwerg, B., Einav, S., Chaudhuri, D., Mancebo, J., Mauri, T., Helviz, Y., Goligher, E. C., Jaber, S., Ricard, J.-D., Rittayamai, N., et al. (2020) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06312-y · Cited by 394
Ou, X., Hua, Y., Liu, J., Gong, C., & Zhao, W. (2017) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.160570 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Hernández, G., Vaquero, C., González, P., Subira, C., Frutos-Vivar, F., Rialp, G., Laborda, C., Colinas, L., Cuena, R., & Fernández, R.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2016-04-05
- Volume
- 315
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1354
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2297491622
- Cited by
- 551
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 52.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2016.2711
- The paper
- Hernández, G., Vaquero, C., González, P., Subira, C., Frutos-Vivar, F., Rialp, G., Laborda, C., Colinas, L., Cuena, R., & Fernández, R. (2016). Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.2711
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.