High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Nasal Prong Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Children With Moderate to Severe Acute Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Malini Maya, Ramachandran Rameshkumar, Tamil Selvan, Chinnaiah Govindhareddy Delhikumar
{"title":"High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Nasal Prong Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Children With Moderate to Severe Acute Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Malini Maya, Ramachandran Rameshkumar, Tamil Selvan, Chinnaiah Govindhareddy Delhikumar","doi":"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomized controlled trial was carried out from August 2019 to February 2022. (Clinical Trials Registry of India number CTRI/2019/07/020402).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Pediatric emergency ward and ICU within a tertiary care center in India.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Children 1-23 months old with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19760,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine is written for the entire critical care team: pediatricians, neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurses, and others who deal with pediatric patients who are critically ill or injured. International in scope, with editorial board members and contributors from around the world, the Journal includes a full range of scientific content, including clinical articles, scientific investigations, solicited reviews, and abstracts from pediatric critical care meetings. Additionally, the Journal includes abstracts of selected articles published in Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish translations - making news of advances in the field available to pediatric and neonatal intensive care practitioners worldwide.