Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39657981›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2025

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: The RENOVATE Randomized Clinical Trial.

RENOVATE Investigators and the BRICNet Authors, Israel S Maia, Letícia Kawano-Dourado, Lucas Tramujas, Neymar Elias de Oliveira, Rafael Naoki Souza, Dhaisi Faustino Signorini, Mariangela Pimentel Pincelli, Cássio Luis Zandonai, Regiane Tamires Blasius and 45 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readEquivalence TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03643939 nacompletednot on this map

RandomizEd Adaptive Trial of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Cannula Compared to Non-Invasive Ventilation for AcuTE Respiratory Failure

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital do CoracaoRan2019 to 2024Enrolled1,801ConditionsRespiratory Insufficiency, Respiratory FailureArmsHigh Flow Nasal Catheter, Noninvasive ventilation
NCT07536477 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

High-flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients With High-altitude Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorThird Military Medical UniversityRan2026 to 2029Enrolled208ConditionsHigh-altitude Pulmonary EdemaArmsHigh-flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (HFNC)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Author Response: High Flow Nasal Cannula Over Non-invasive Ventilation in Preventing Reintubation: Signal Bias or Both?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

55 authors.

RENOVATE Investigators and the BRICNet Authors
Israel S MaiaHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Letícia Kawano-DouradoHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lucas TramujasHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Neymar Elias de OliveiraFundação Faculdade Regional de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Rafael Naoki SouzaFundação Faculdade Regional de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Dhaisi Faustino SignoriniFundação Faculdade Regional de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Mariangela Pimentel PincelliHospital Nereu Ramos, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Cássio Luis ZandonaiHospital Nereu Ramos, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Regiane Tamires BlasiusHospital Nereu Ramos, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Fabrício FreiresHospital São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Vanessa Marques FerreiraHospital São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marcelo Luz Pereira RomanoIntensive Care Unit, Hcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Mieko Claudia MiuraIntensive Care Unit, Hcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Caroline Maschio de CensoIntensive Care Unit, Hcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Eliana Bernadete CaserHospital Unimed Vitória, Vitória, Brazil.
Betania SilvaHospital Unimed Vitória, Vitória, Brazil.
Daniela Correia Santos BonomoHospital Unimed Vitória, Vitória, Brazil.
Jussara Alencar ArraesHospital Maternidade São Vicente de Paulo, Barbalha, Brazil.
Meton Soares de Alencar FilhoHospital Maternidade São Vicente de Paulo, Barbalha, Brazil.
Jacques Gabriel Álvares HortaSanta Casa da Misericórdia de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil.
Déborah Campos OliveiraSanta Casa da Misericórdia de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil.
Emerson BoschiHospital Geral de Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Rafael Lessa CostaHospital Geral de Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Glauco Adrieno WestphalCentro Hospitalar Unimed de Joinville, Joinville, Brazil.
Juliano RamosCentro Hospitalar Unimed de Joinville, Joinville, Brazil.
Fábio Holanda LacerdaInstituto Oto de Pesquisa, Ensino e Inovação-Hospital Oto Aldeota, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Conrado Roberto Hoffmann FilhoHospital Regional Hans Dieter Schmidt, Joinville, Brazil.
Bruno Valle PinheiroHospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
Leonardo Bugarin de Andrade NeumammHospital Naval Marcílio Dias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Mário Roberto Rezende Guimarães JúniorSanta Casa de Barretos, Barretos, Brazil.
Davi Tamamaru de SouzaHospital Universitário da Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, Brazil.
Juliana Carvalho FerreiraBrazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet), São Paulo, Brazil.
Louis Nakayama OheInstituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia, São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniel Almeida SchettiniHospital da Luz, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marlus Muri ThompsonHospital Evangélico de Cachoeiro de Itapemirim, Cachoeiro de Itapemirim, Brazil.
Maria Cristina França de OliveiraHospital AC Camargo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Viviane Cordeiro VeigaBrazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet), São Paulo, Brazil.
Karina L NegrelliHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Renato H N SantosHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lucas DamianiHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rodrigo M GurgelHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Samara P C GomesHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lucas M LimaHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Tamiris A MirandaHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ligia N LaranjeiraHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pedro Gabriel Melo de Barros E SilvaHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Flávia R MachadoBrazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet), São Paulo, Brazil.
Mark FitzgeraldBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Anna BosseBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Joe MarionBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Carlos Roberto Ribeiro CarvalhoDivisão de Pneumologia, Instituto do Coracao, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Laurent BrochardKeenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Roger J LewisBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Alexandre Biasi CavalcantiHcor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are commonly used respiratory support therapies for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Objective: To assess whether HFNO is noninferior to NIV on the rates of endotracheal intubation or death at 7 days in 5 patient groups with ARF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This noninferiority, randomized clinical trial enrolled hospitalized adults (aged ≥18 years; classified as 5 patient groups with ARF: nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemia, immunocompromised with hypoxemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbation with respiratory acidosis, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema [ACPE], or hypoxemic COVID-19, which was added as a separate group on June 26, 2023) at 33 hospitals in Brazil between November 2019 and November 2023 (final follow-up: April 26, 2024). Interventions: High-flow nasal oxygen (n = 883) or NIV (n = 883). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days assessed using a bayesian hierarchical model with dynamic borrowing across patient groups. Noninferiority was defined by a posterior probability of 0.992 or greater for an odds ratio (OR) less than 1.55. Results: Among 1800 patients, 1766 completed the study (mean age, 64 [SD, 17] years; 707 [40%] were women). The primary outcome of endotracheal intubation or death at 7 days occurred in 39% (344/883) in the HFNO group vs 38% (336/883) in the NIV group. In the immunocompromised with hypoxemia patient group, the primary outcome occurred in 57.1% (16/28) in the HFNO group vs 36.4% (8/22) in the NIV group; enrollment was stopped for futility (final OR, 1.07; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.81-1.39; noninferiority posterior probability [NPP], 0.989). In the nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemia group, the primary outcome occurred in 32.5% (81/249) in the HFNO group vs 33.1% (78/236) in the NIV group (OR, 1.02 [95% CrI, 0.81-1.26]; NPP, 0.999). In the ACPE group, the primary outcome occurred in 10.3% (14/136) in the HFNO group vs 21.3% (29/136) in the NIV group (OR, 0.97 [95% CrI, 0.73-1.23]; NPP, 0.997). In the hypoxemic COVID-19 group, the primary outcome occurred in 51.3% (223/435) in the HFNO group vs 47.0% (210/447) in the NIV group (OR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.94-1.38]; NPP, 0.997). In the COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis group, the primary outcome occurred in 28.6% (10/35) in the HFNO group vs 26.2% (11/42) in the NIV group (OR, 1.05 [95% CrI, 0.79-1.36]; NPP, 0.992). However, a post hoc analysis without dynamic borrowing across the 5 ARF patient groups revealed some qualitatively different results in patients with COPD, immunocompromised patients, and patients with ACPE. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar (9.4% of patients in HFNO group vs 9.9% in NIV group). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with NIV, HFNO met prespecified criteria for noninferiority for the primary outcome of endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days in 4 of the 5 patient groups with ARF. However, the small sample sizes in some patient groups and the sensitivity of the findings to the choice of analysis model suggests the need for further study in patients with COPD, immunocompromised patients, and patients with ACPE. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03643939.

Indexed as

Noninvasive VentilationOxygen Inhalation TherapyRespiratory InsufficiencyAcute DiseaseAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBayes TheoremBrazilCannulaCOVID-19FemaleHumansHypoxiaImmunocompromised HostIntubation, Intratracheal

Identifiers

PMID39657981
PMCPMC11897836

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.