Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 2;19:380. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-1097-0

Table 2.

Primary and secondary endpoints in the two treatment groups

HFNO group Venturi mask group P value
(n = 52) (n = 48)
Primary endpoint
 Number (%) of patients requiring mechanical ventilation 8 (15 %) 4 (8 %) 0.36
  Noninvasive mechanical ventilation 6a 3a
  Invasive mechanical ventilation 4 2
Secondary endpoints, median [25th–75th percentile]
 Discomfort VAS scoreb at 120 min 3 [1–5] 3 [0–5] 0.88
 Dyspnea VAS scoreb at 120 min 3 [2 – 6] 3 [1–6] 0.87
 Thirst VAS scoreb at 120 min 6 [3–8] 6 [5 – 9] 0.40
 Respiratory rate at 120 min, breaths/min 25 [22–29] 25 [21–31]
 Heart rate at 120 min, beats/min 98 [90–110] 99 [83–112] 0.43

HFNO high-flow nasal oxygen, VAS visual analogue scale

aTwo patients in the HFNO group and one patient in the Venturi mask group received noninvasive ventilation followed by invasive mechanical ventilation

bAll three VASs ranged from 0 (absence of discomfort, dyspnea, or thirst) to 10 (worst possible discomfort, dyspnea, or thirst)