Reply to: The Respiratory Rate-Oxygenation Index predicts post-extubation high-flow nasal cannula therapy failure in intensive care unit patients: a retrospective cohort study - Critical Care Science (CCS)
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(3):333-334
We want to thank Francesco Alessandri, Pierfrancesco Tozzi, and Antonio Esquinas for their interest in our study.() Their constructive feedback is greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly reviewed their concerns and are pleased to provide the following responses.
It is important to acknowledge that there is a lack of a universally agreed-upon Respiratory Rate-Oxygenation (ROX) cutoff point for predicting high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy failure. While our study did not specifically focus on establishing a cutoff point, our proposed value falls within the range suggested by several other studies. Although certain research manuscripts have used higher values, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in 2022 favored a narrower cutoff point. These articles included 1,751 and 1,933 patients(,) and employed cutoff points ranging from 4.2 to 5.4. Thus, our suggested cutoff point of 4.88 aligns closely with this narrow range, reinforcing the robustness of our findings. Nevertheless, more studies are required to validate and standardize these values.
[…]
Search
Search in:
Search
Search in:
We want to thank Francesco Alessandri, Pierfrancesco Tozzi, and Antonio Esquinas for their interest in our study.() Their constructive feedback is greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly reviewed their concerns and are pleased to provide the following responses.
It is important to acknowledge that there is a lack of a universally agreed-upon Respiratory Rate-Oxygenation (ROX) cutoff point for predicting high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy failure. While our study did not specifically focus on establishing a cutoff point, our proposed value falls within the range suggested by several other studies. Although certain research manuscripts have used higher values, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in 2022 favored a narrower cutoff point. These articles included 1,751 and 1,933 patients(,) and employed cutoff points ranging from 4.2 to 5.4. Thus, our suggested cutoff point of 4.88 aligns closely with this narrow range, reinforcing the robustness of our findings. Nevertheless, more studies are required to validate and standardize these values.
[...]
Comments