Respiratory support with standard low-flow oxygen therapy, high-flow oxygen therapy or continuous positive airway pressure in adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in a resource-limited setting: Protocol for a randomised, open-label, clinical trial - The Acute Respiratory Intervention StudiEs in Africa (ARISE-AFRICA) study
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 14, Issue: 6, Page: e082223
2024
- 11Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures11
- Readers11
- 11
Article Description
Rationale Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is associated with high mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. This is at least in part due to critical care-related resource constraints including limited access to invasive mechanical ventilation and/or highly skilled acute care workers. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula (HFNC) may prove useful to reduce intubation, and therefore, improve survival outcomes among critically ill patients, particularly in resource-limited settings, but data in such settings are lacking. The aim of this study is to determine whether CPAP or HFNC as compared with standard oxygen therapy, could reduce mortality among adults presenting with AHRF in a resource-limited setting. Methods This is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled, stepped wedge trial, in which patients presenting with AHRF in Uganda will be randomly assigned to standard oxygen therapy delivered through a face mask, HFNC oxygen or CPAP. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients with criteria for intubation at day 7, the number of patients intubated at day 28, ventilator-free days at day 28 and tolerance of each respiratory support. Ethics and dissemination The study has obtained ethical approval from the Research and Ethics Committee, School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University as well as the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. Patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04693403. Protocol version 8 September 2023; version 5.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85197669453&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082223; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38951007; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04693403; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082223; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082223; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/6/e082223
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know