Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute bronchiolitis in children

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute bronchiolitis in children

BACKGROUND

Acute bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of emergency department visits and hospitalisation in children up to three years of age. There is no specific treatment for bronchiolitis except for supportive treatment, which includes ensuring adequate hydration and oxygen supplementation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) aims to widen the lungs' peripheral airways, enabling deflation of overdistended lungs in bronchiolitis. Increased airway pressure also prevents the collapse of poorly supported peripheral small airways during expiration. Observational studies report that CPAP is beneficial for children with acute bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 and updated in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of CPAP compared to no CPAP or sham CPAP in infants and children up to three years of age with acute bronchiolitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of CENTRAL (2021, Issue 7), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2021), Embase (1974 to August 2021), CINAHL (1981 to August 2021), and LILACS (1982 to August 2021) in August 2021. We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for completed and ongoing trials on 26 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cross-over RCTs, and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data using a structured pro forma, analysed data, and performed meta-analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies. We created a summary of the findings table employing GRADEpro GDT software.  MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 122 children (62/60 in intervention/control arms) aged up to 12 months investigating nasal CPAP compared with supportive (or 'standard') therapy. We included one new trial (72 children) in the 2019 update that contributed data to the assessment of respiratory rate and the need for mechanical ventilation for this update. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in the current update. The included studies were single-centre trials conducted in France, the UK, and India. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs, and one study was a cross-over RCT. The evidence provided by the included studies was of low certainty; we made an assessment of high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, and confidence intervals were wide. The effect of CPAP on the need for mechanical ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis was uncertain due to risk of bias and imprecision around the effect estimate (risk difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.08; 3 RCTs, 122 children; low certainty evidence). None of the trials measured time to recovery. Limited, low certainty evidence indicated that CPAP decreased respiratory rate (decreased respiratory rate is better) (mean difference (MD) -3.81, 95% CI -5.78 to -1.84; 2 RCTs, 91 children; low certainty evidence). Only one trial measured change in arterial oxygen saturation (increased oxygen saturation is better), and the results were imprecise (MD -1.70%, 95% CI -3.76 to 0.36; 1 RCT, 19 children; low certainty evidence). The effect of CPAP on change in arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO₂) (decrease in pCO₂ is better) was imprecise (MD -2.62 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 0.05; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both the CPAP and supportive care groups (MD 0.07 days, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.50; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Two studies did not report pneumothorax, but pneumothorax did not occur in one study. No studies reported occurrences of deaths. Several outcomes (change in partial oxygen pressure, hospital admission rate (from the emergency department to hospital), duration of emergency department stay, and need for intensive care unit admission) were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of CPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in children with bronchiolitis, although the evidence was of low certainty. Limited, low certainty evidence suggests that breathing improved (a decreased respiratory rate) in children with bronchiolitis who received CPAP; this finding is unchanged from the 2015 review and 2019 update. Due to the limited available evidence, the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis is uncertain for our other outcomes. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to evaluate the effect of CPAP for children with acute bronchiolitis.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs. High Flow Nasal Cannula in children with acute severe or moderate bronchiolitis. A systematic review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) vs. High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) to prevent therapeutic failure and the need of invasive ventilation in children with acute moderate-severe bronchiolitis.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane and gray literature (May 2020) was performed.

PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trials patients with moderate to severe bronchiolitis.

MAIN VARIABLES

Therapeutic failure, need for invasive ventilation, adverse events, length of PCCU and of hospital stay.

INTERVENTION

The quality of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk and bias tool. We conducted meta-analysis using fixed effect model and random effects model.

RESULTS

Three RCTs were included. Showed less risk of therapeutic failure with CPAP compared with HFNC (RR=0.7; 95%CI 0.5-0.99) developed hours later in patients with CPAP (MD=3.16; 95%CI 1.55-4.77). We did not find differences in other outcomes, such as need of invasive ventilation (RR=0.60; 95%CI 0.25-1.43), apnea (RR=0.40; 95%CI 0.08-1.99), or number of days in the intensive care unit (MD=0.02; 95%CI -0.38 to 0.42), and length of hospitalization (MD=-1.00; 95%IC -2.66 to 0.66). Adverse events (skin lesions) were more common with CPAP (RR 2.47; 95%CI 1.17-5.22).

CONCLUSIONS

In moderate/severe bronchiolitis CPAP demonstrated a lower risk of therapeutic failure and a longer time to failure. But more adverse events like nasal injury. There were no differences in other variables.

Comparison of high flow nasal cannula and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in children with bronchiolitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) compared to non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) on children with bronchiolitis remain unclear.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without time and language limitations. Primary endpoints include the rate of treatment failure, the rate of need for intubation, and the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay.

RESULTS

Five RCTs including 541 children of less than 24 months were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Compared to the NIPPV group, the rate of treatment failure was significantly higher in the HFNC treatment group (I ² = 0.0%, P = 0.574; RR 1.523, 95% CI 1.205 to 1.924, P < 0.001). No significant difference was noted in the need for intubation (I ² = 0.0%, P = 0.431; RR 0.874, 95% CI 0.598 to 1.276, P = 0.485) and the PICU length of stay (I ² = 0.0%, P = 0.568; WMD = -0.097, 95% CI = -0.480 to 0.285, P = 0.618) between the HFNC group and the NIPPV treatment.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the NIPPV group, HFNC therapy was associated with a significantly higher treatment failure rate in children suffering from bronchiolitis. The intubation rate and the PICU length of stay were comparable between the two approaches.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs. High Flow Nasal Cannula in children with acute severe or moderate bronchiolitis. A systematic review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) vs. High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) to prevent therapeutic failure and the need of invasive ventilation in children with acute moderate-severe bronchiolitis.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane and gray literature (May 2020) was performed.

PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trials patients with moderate to severe bronchiolitis.

MAIN VARIABLES

Therapeutic failure, need for invasive ventilation, adverse events, length of PCCU and of hospital stay.

INTERVENTION

The quality of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk and bias tool. We conducted meta-analysis using fixed effect model and random effects model.

RESULTS

Three RCTs were included. Showed less risk of therapeutic failure with CPAP compared with HFNC (RR=0.7; 95%CI 0.5-0.99) developed hours later in patients with CPAP (MD=3.16; 95%CI 1.55-4.77). We did not find differences in other outcomes, such as need of invasive ventilation (RR=0.60; 95%CI 0.25-1.43), apnea (RR=0.40; 95%CI 0.08-1.99), or number of days in the intensive care unit (MD=0.02; 95%CI -0.38 to 0.42), and length of hospitalization (MD=-1.00; 95%IC -2.66 to 0.66). Adverse events (skin lesions) were more common with CPAP (RR 2.47; 95%CI 1.17-5.22).

CONCLUSIONS

In moderate/severe bronchiolitis CPAP demonstrated a lower risk of therapeutic failure and a longer time to failure. But more adverse events like nasal injury. There were no differences in other variables.

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care

INTRODUCTION

Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN60048867.

Domiciliary use of transcutaneous electrical stimulation for patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: a conceptual framework for the TESLA home programme

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a global health problem of increasing prevalence. Effective treatments are available with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy and mandibular advancement devices (MAD). However, there is limited long-term adherence to therapy, as CPAP and MAD require permanent usage to avoid recurrence of the symptoms and adverse ill health. Alternative treatments would aid in the treatment cascade to manage OSA effectively whenever standard therapy has been trialled and failed. Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS), an invasive approach to stimulate the pharyngeal dilator muscles of the upper airway during sleep, has been approved for the treatment of OSA by several healthcare systems in recent years. In parallel to the development of HNS, a non-invasive approach has been developed to deliver electrical stimulation. Transcutaneous electrical stimulation in obstructive sleep apnoea (TESLA) uses non-invasive electrical stimulation to increase neuromuscular tone of the upper airway dilator muscles of patients with OSA during sleep. Data from previous feasibility studies and randomised controlled trials have helped to identify a subgroup of patients who are "responders" to this treatment. However, further investigations are required to assess usability, functionality and task accomplishment of this novel treatment. Consideration of these factors in the study design of future clinical trials will strengthen research methodology and protocols, improve patient related outcome measures and assessments, to optimise this emerging therapeutical option. In this review, we will introduce a conceptual framework for the TESLA home programme highlighting qualitative aspects and outcomes.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute bronchiolitis in children

BACKGROUND

Acute bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of emergency department visits and hospitalisation in children. There is no specific treatment for bronchiolitis except for supportive treatment, which includes ensuring adequate hydration and oxygen supplementation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) aims to widen the lungs' peripheral airways, enabling deflation of overdistended lungs in bronchiolitis. Increased airway pressure also prevents the collapse of poorly supported peripheral small airways during expiration. Observational studies report that CPAP is beneficial for children with acute bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of CPAP compared to no CPAP or sham CPAP in infants and children up to three years of age with acute bronchiolitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of CENTRAL (2017, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to December, 2017), Embase (1974 to December 2017), CINAHL (1981 to December 2017), and LILACS (1982 to December 2017) in January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cross-over RCTs, and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data using a structured pro forma, analysed data, and performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies with a total of 122 children (62/60 in intervention/control arms) aged up to 12 months that investigated nasal CPAP compared with supportive (or "standard") therapy. We included one new trial (72 children) that contributed data to the assessment of respiratory rate and need for mechanical ventilation for this update. The included studies were single-centre trials conducted in France, the UK, and India. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and one was a cross-over RCT. The evidence provided by the included studies was low quality; we assessed high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, and confidence intervals were wide.The effect of CPAP on the need for mechanical ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis was uncertain due to imprecision around the effect estimate (3 RCTs, 122 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 3.36; low-quality evidence). None of the trials measured time to recovery. Limited, low-quality evidence indicated that CPAP decreased respiratory rate (2 RCTs, 91 children; mean difference (MD) -3.81, 95% CI -5.78 to -1.84). Only one trial measured change in arterial oxygen saturation, and the results were imprecise (19 children; MD -1.70%, 95% CI -3.76 to 0.36). The effect of CPAP on change in arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO₂) was imprecise (2 RCTs, 50 children; MD -2.62 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 0.05; low-quality evidence). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both CPAP and supportive care groups (2 RCTs, 50 children; MD 0.07 days, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.50; low-quality evidence). Two studies did not report about pneumothorax, but pneumothorax did not occur in one study. No studies reported occurrences of deaths. Several outcomes (change in partial oxygen pressure, hospital admission rate (from emergency department to hospital), duration of emergency department stay, and need for intensive care unit admission) were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited, low-quality evidence suggests that breathing improved (a decreased respiratory rate) in children with bronchiolitis who received CPAP; this finding is unchanged from the 2015 review. Further evidence for this outcome was provided by the inclusion of a low-quality study for the 2018 update. Due to the limited available evidence, the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis is uncertain for other outcomes. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to evaluate the effect of CPAP for children with acute bronchiolitis.

Non-invasive ventilation for the management of children with bronchiolitis (NOVEMBR): a feasibility study and core outcome set development protocol

BACKGROUND

Bronchiolitis is an acute lower respiratory infection which predominantly affects young children. Treatment for bronchiolitis is limited to supportive therapy. Nasal oxygen therapy is part of routine care, and delivery now incorporates varying levels of non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure and/or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. Despite wide clinical use, there remains a lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Furthermore, research in this field is hampered by the use of multiple outcome measures in current clinical trials.

METHODS/DESIGN

This mixed methods study includes a systematic review of outcome measures, telephone interviews with parents, focus group workshops and a Delphi survey with healthcare professionals and parents. These methods will be used to identify and prioritise outcomes for inclusion in a core outcome set and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a future randomised controlled trial comparing different modes of oxygen therapy for bronchiolitis. UK hospitals will also be contacted and asked to complete a survey to provide an overview of current practice to enable assessment of capability and capacity to run a future clinical trial.

DISCUSSION

This study will facilitate the design of a future clinical trial of non-invasive ventilation in children with bronchiolitis which is acceptable to important stakeholders. Furthermore, core outcome set development will improve standardisation, measurement and reporting of clinically important outcomes in bronchiolitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN75766048. Registered on 18 December 2017. This study was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN Registry and on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database (15 September 2017).

The change in management of bronchiolitis in the intensive care unit between 2000 and 2015

This case-control study evaluated interventions for bronchiolitis in relation to time in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) during a 16-year surveillance period. Together, 105 infants aged < 12 months were treated for bronchiolitis in the PICU, and for them, we selected 210 controls admitted for bronchiolitis closest to cases. We collected data on treatments in the PICU, at the ward and in the emergency department for three periods: years 2000-2005, 2006-2010, and 2011-2015. Median hospital length of stay for PICU patients were 7 days (interquartile range 5-12), 5 days (4-8) and 8 days (4-12.5, p = 0.127), respectively. By time, the use of inhaled beta-agonist (68 vs. 44 vs. 38%, p = 0.019) and systemic corticosteroids (29 vs. 15 vs. 5%, p = 0.019) decreased, but that of racemic adrenaline (59 vs. 78 vs. 84%, p = 0.035) and hypertonic saline (0 vs. 0 vs. 54%, p < 0.001) inhalations increased in the PICU. Similar changes were seen at the ward. In the PICU, non-invasive ventilation therapies increased significantly, but intubation rates did not decline.Conclusion: Beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids were used less by time in intensive care for infant bronchiolitis, but the use of hypertonic saline and racemic adrenaline increased, though their effectiveness has been questioned. What is Known: • Until now, studies have shown which treatments do not work in bronchiolitis, and so, there is no consensus how infants with bronchiolitis should be treated. In particular, there is no consensus on different interventions in intensive care for bronchiolitis. What is New: • During 2000-2015, treatments with inhaled beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids decreased but treatments with racemic adrenaline and hypertonic saline inhalations increased in intensive care for bronchiolitis. Similar changes were seen at the ward. Though non-invasive ventilation therapies increased, the intubation rate did not decline.

Past, Present and Future Approaches to the Prevention and Treatment of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Children

INTRODUCTION

The REGAL (RSV Evidence - A Geographical Archive of the Literature) series has provided a comprehensive review of the published evidence in the field of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Western countries over the last 20 years. This seventh and final publication covers the past, present and future approaches to the prevention and treatment of RSV infection among infants and children.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of publications between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2017 across PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library. Studies reporting data on the effectiveness and tolerability of prophylactic and therapeutic agents for RSV infection were included. Study quality and strength of evidence (SOE) were graded using recognized criteria. A further nonsystematic search of the published literature and Clinicaltrials.gov on antiviral therapies and RSV vaccines currently in development was also undertaken.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 1441 studies of which 161 were included. Management of RSV remains centered around prophylaxis with the monoclonal antibody palivizumab, which has proven effective in reducing RSV hospitalization (RSVH) in preterm infants < 36 weeks' gestational age (72% reduction), children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (65% reduction), and infants with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (53% reduction) (high SOE). Palivizumab has also shown to be effective in reducing recurrent wheezing following RSVH (high SOE). Treatment of RSV with ribavirin has conflicting success (moderate SOE). Antibodies with increased potency and extended half-life are currently entering phase 3 trials. There are approximately 15 RSV vaccines in clinical development targeting the infant directly or indirectly via the mother.

CONCLUSION

Palivizumab remains the only product licensed for RSV prophylaxis, and only available for high-risk infants. For the general population, there are several promising vaccines and monoclonal antibodies in various stages of clinical development, with the aim to significantly reduce the global healthcare impact of this common viral infection.

FUNDING

AbbVie.

Comparative Study between Noninvasive Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Hot Humidified High-flow Nasal Cannulae as a Mode of Respiratory Support in Infants with Acute Bronchiolitis in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background

Early initiation of appropriate noninvasive respiratory support is utmost important intervention to avoid mechanical ventilation in severe bronchiolitis.

Aim

This study aims to compare noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and hot humidified high-flow nasal cannulae (HHHFNC) as modes of respiratory support in infants with severe bronchiolitis.

Methods

Prospective, randomized, open-label pilot study done in a tertiary-care hospital Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Participants: 31 infants (excluding neonates) clinically diagnosed with acute bronchiolitis having peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) <92% (with room air oxygen); Respiratory Distress Assessment Index (RDAI) ≥11. Intervention: nCPAP (n = 16) or HHHFNC (n = 15), initiated at enrollment. Primary outcome: Reduction of need of mechanical ventilation assessed by improvements in (i) SpO₂% (ii) heart rate (HR); respiratory rate; (iii) partial pressure of carbon dioxide; (iv) partial pressure of oxygen; (v) COMFORT Score; (vi) RDAI from preintervention value. Secondary outcome: (i) total duration of noninvasive ventilation support; (ii) PICU length of stay; and (iii) incidence of nasal injury (NI).

Results

Mean age was 3.41 ± 1.11 months (95% confidence interval 2.58-4.23). Compared to nCPAP, HHHFNC was better tolerated as indicated by better normalization of HR (P < 0.001); better COMFORT Score (P < 0.003) and lower incidence of NI (46.66% vs. 75%; P = 0.21). Improvements in other outcome measures were comparable for both groups. For both methods, no major patient complications occurred.

Conclusion

HHHFNC is an emerging alternative to nCPAP in the management of infants with acute bronchiolitis.

Comparison of CPAP and HFNC in Management of Bronchiolitis in Infants and Young Children

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been used in infants with bronchiolitis for decades. Recently, high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy was introduced We conducted a retrospective study of treatment with CPAP vs. HFNC between 2013 and 2015, comparing the development in respiratory rate, fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) and heart rate, treatment failure, duration of treatment, and length of hospital stay. A sample size of 49 children were included. Median age was 1.9 months. Median baseline pCO₂ was 7.4 kPa in both groups, respiratory rate per minute was 57 vs. 58 (CPAP vs. HFNC). Respiratory rate decreased faster in the CPAP group (p < 0.05). FiO2 decreased in the CPAP group and increased in the HFNC group during the first 12 h, whereafter it decreased in both groups. (p < 0.01). Heart rate development was similar in both groups. Twelve children (55%) changed systems from HFNC to CPAP due to disease progression. There was no difference in length of treatment, hospital stay, or transmission to intensive care unit between the groups. CPAP was more effective than HFNC in decreasing respiratory rate (RR) and FiO2. No differences were observed in length of treatment or complications. Further studies should be conducted to compare the efficacy of the two treatments of bronchiolitis, preferably through prospective randomized trials.

Prospective Multicentre Study on the Epidemiology and Current Therapeutic Management of Severe Bronchiolitis in Spain

Objective. To determine the epidemiology and therapeutic management of patients with severe acute bronchiolitis (AB) admitted to paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in Spain. Design. Descriptive, prospective, multicentre study. Setting. Sixteen Spanish PICUs. Patients. Patients with severe AB who required admission to any of the participating PICUs over 1 year. Interventions. Both epidemiological variables and medical treatment received were recorded. Results. A total of 262 patients were recruited; 143 were male (54.6%), with median age of 1 month (0–23). Median stay in the PICU was 7 days (1–46). Sixty patients (23%) received no nebuliser treatment, while the rest received a combination of inhalation therapies. One-quarter of patients (24.8%) received corticosteroids and 56.5% antibiotic therapy. High-flow oxygen therapy was used in 14.3% and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) was used in 75.6%. Endotracheal intubation was required in 24.4% of patients. Younger age, antibiotic therapy, and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were risk factors that significantly increased the stay in the PICU. Conclusions. Spanish PICUs continue to routinely use nebulised bronchodilator treatment and corticosteroid therapy. Despite NIV being widely used in this condition, intubation was required in one-quarter of cases. Younger age, antibiotic therapy, and IMV were associated with a longer stay in the PICU.