Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort study

Table 3 Comparisons of PaO₂/FiO₂ of patients in the success and failure groups with different support methods

	PaO₂/FiO₂ for low level (LL) of support (mmHg)	PaO₂/FiO₂ for high level (HL) of support (mmHg)	P value
In success patients (LL vs HL)
HFNC vs HFNC+PP	95 ± 22	130 ± 35	0.016*
HFNC+PP vs NIV	131 ± 38	156 ± 36	0.046*
NIV vs NIV+PP	166 ± 12	140 ± 30	0.133
In failure patients (LL vs HL)
HFNC vs HFNC+PP	102 ± 15	113 ± 25	0.349
HFNC+PP vs NIV	125 ± 18	65 ± 7	0.180
NIV vs NIV+PP	111 ± 20	77 ± 14	0.011*

NIV non-invasive ventilation, HFNC high-flow nasal cannula, PP prone position, LL low level, HL high level

ISSN: 1364-8535