High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Nasal Prong Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Children With Moderate to Severe Acute Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

被引:3
|
作者
Maya, Malini [1 ]
Rameshkumar, Ramachandran [1 ,2 ]
Selvan, Tamil [1 ]
Delhikumar, Chinnaiah Govindhareddy [1 ]
机构
[1] Jawaharlal Inst Postgrad Med Educ & Res JIPMER, Dept Pediat, Div Pediat Crit Care, Pondicherry, India
[2] Mohammed Bin Rashid Univ & Hlth Sci, Mediclin City Hosp, Dept Pediat, Pediat Intens Care Unit, Dubai, U Arab Emirates
关键词
bronchiolitis; children; high-flow nasal cannula; mechanical ventilation; nasal prong continuous positive airway pressure; respiratory support; PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE-CARE; VIRAL BRONCHIOLITIS; MANAGEMENT; INFANTS; THERAPY; OXYGEN; CPAP;
D O I
10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Objectives: To compare high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus nasal prong bubble continuous positive airway pressure (b-CPAP) in children with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis. Design: A randomized controlled trial was carried out from August 2019 to February 2022. (Clinical Trials Registry of India number CTRI/2019/07/020402). Setting: Pediatric emergency ward and ICU within a tertiary care center in India. Patients: Children 1-23 months old with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis. Intervention: Comparison of HFNC with b-CPAP, using a primary outcome of treatment failure within 24 hours of randomization, as defined by any of: 1) a 1-point increase in modified Wood's clinical asthma score (m-WCAS) above baseline, 2) a rise in respiratory rate (RR) greater than 10 per minute from baseline, and 3) escalation in respiratory support. The secondary outcomes were success rate after crossover, if any, need for mechanical ventilation (invasive/noninvasive), local skin lesions, length of hospital stay, and complications. Results: In 118 children analyzed by intention-to-treat, HFNC ( n = 59) versus b-CPAP ( n = 59) was associated with a lower failure rate (23.7% vs. 42.4%; relative risk [95% CI], RR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.97], p = 0.031). The Cox proportion model confirmed a lower hazard of treatment failure in the HFNC group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.48 [95% CI, 0.25-0.94], p = 0.032). No crossover was noted. A lower proportion escalated to noninvasive ventilation in the HFNC group (15.3%) versus the b-CPAP group (15.3% vs. 39% [RR 0.39 (95% CI, 0.20-0.77)], p = 0.004). The HFNC group had a longer median (interquartile range) duration of oxygen therapy (4 [3-6] vs. 3 [3-5] d; p = 0.012) and hospital stay (6 [5-8.5] vs. 5 [4-7] d, p = 0.021). No significant difference was noted in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: In children aged one to 23 months with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis, the use of HFNC therapy as opposed to b-CPAP for early respiratory support is associated with a lower failure rate and, secondarily, a lower risk of escalation to mechanical ventilation.
引用
收藏
页码:748 / 757
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Critical Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Pilot
    Cesar, Regina Grigolli
    Bispo, Bibiane Ramos Pinheiro
    Felix, Priscilla Helena Costa Alves
    Modolo, Maria Carolina Caparica
    Souza, Andreia Aparecida Freitas
    Horigoshi, Nelson K.
    Rotta, Alexandre T.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE, 2020, 09 (04) : 248 - 255
  • [2] High flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure and nasal positive pressure ventilation in infants with severe bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial
    Borgi, Aida
    Louati, Assaad
    Ghali, Narjess
    Hajji, Ahmed
    Ayari, Ahmed
    Bouziri, Asma
    Hssairi, Mohamed
    Menif, Khaled
    Benjaballah, Nejla
    PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2021, 40
  • [3] Interest of High Flow Nasal Cannula versus nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure during the management of severe bronchiolitis in infants: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
    Milesi, C.
    Essouri, S.
    Pouyau, R.
    Liet, J. M.
    Afanetti, M.
    Baleine, J.
    Durand, S.
    Cambonie, G.
    Breinig, S.
    Javouhey, E.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2016, 175 (11) : 1436 - 1436
  • [4] Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure or High-Flow Nasal Cannula?
    Ramanathan, R.
    Biniwale, M.
    NEONATOLOGY, 2014, 106 (03) : 268 - 269
  • [5] High-flow nasal cannula oxygen in children with bronchiolitis: A randomized controlled trial
    Eski, Aykut
    Ozturk, Gokcen Kartal
    Turan, Caner
    Ozgul, Semiha
    Gulen, Figen
    Demir, Esen
    PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, 2022, 57 (06) : 1527 - 1534
  • [6] Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and High-Flow Nasal Cannula Today
    Dani, Carlo
    CLINICS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2021, 48 (04) : 711 - 724
  • [7] Continuous positive airway pressure versus high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A randomized controlled trial
    Nagata, Kazuma
    Yokoyama, Toshiki
    Tsugitomi, Ryosuke
    Nakashima, Harunori
    Kuraishi, Hiroshi
    Ohshimo, Shinichiro
    Mori, Yoshihiro
    Sakuraya, Masaaki
    Kagami, Ryogo
    Tanigawa, Motoaki
    Tobino, Kazunori
    Kamo, Tetsuro
    Kadowaki, Toru
    Koga, Yasutaka
    Ogata, Yoshitaka
    Nishimura, Naoki
    Kondoh, Yasuhiro
    Taniuchi, Satsuki
    Shintani, Ayumi
    Tomii, Keisuke
    RESPIROLOGY, 2024, 29 (01) : 36 - 45
  • [8] High-flow nasal cannula for children not compliant with continuous positive airway pressure
    Amaddeo, Alessandro
    Khirani, Sonia
    Frapin, Annick
    Teng, Theo
    Griffon, Lucie
    Fauroux, Brigitte
    SLEEP MEDICINE, 2019, 63 : 24 - 28
  • [9] A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF HIGH-FLOW NASAL CANNULA VERSUS CPAP IN CRITICAL BRONCHIOLITIS
    Cesar, Regina
    Bispo, Bibiane
    Felix, Priscila Helena
    Modolo, Maria Carolina
    Cabo, Soraia
    Souza, Andreia
    Pizzini, Priscilla
    Horigoshi, Nelson
    Rotta, Alexandre
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2018, 46 (01) : 553 - 553
  • [10] High-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the management of apnea of prematurity
    Dutta, S
    PEDIATRICS, 2002, 109 (04) : 718 - 719