Respiratory failure & ventilation
Under-The-Nose Versus Over-The-Nose Face Mask to Prevent Facial Pressure Sores During Face Mask-Delivered Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Authors' conclusion
In patients with AHRF, under-the-nose FM significantly reduced the incidence of facial pressure sores compared to the most commonly used first-line interface, the standard FM.
Study context
- Population
- Patients needing NIV for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in 2 French tertiary-hospital ICUs
- Participants
- 108 patients
- Comparison
- Under-the-nose vs over-the-nose face mask for NIV
- Primary endpoint
- Facial pressure sores
Methodological detailsmulticentre, prospective
- Multicentre
- Prospective
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
- Under-the-nose face mask (FM) vs Over-the-nose FM: P < 0.001
Secondary outcomes
Interface failure (switch to total face mask)
P = 0.004
Interface failure due to excessive unintentional air leaks
P < 0.001
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Protective dressings used | P < 0.001 |
Mortality, NIV failure (intubation or death), arterial blood gas improvement
- Similar in the two groups
Safety
Excessive unintentional air leaks (cause of interface failure)
P < 0.001
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Under-The-Nose Versus Over-The-Nose Face Mask to Prevent Facial Pressure Sores During Face Mask-Delivered Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Crit Care Med. Published 11 May 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →