Paediatric ED BiPAP continuous quality improvement programme with patient analysis: 2005-2013

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Asthma is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission among children, with significant economic burden and impact on quality of life. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is increasingly used in the care of children with acute asthma, although the evidence supporting it is weak, and clinical guidelines do not offer any recommendations on its routine use. However, NPPV might be an effective way to improve outcomes for some children with asthma. A previous review did not demonstrate a clear benefit, but was limited by few studies with small sample sizes. This is an update of the previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care (e.g. bronchodilators and corticosteroids) in children (< 18 years) with acute asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We searched all databases from their inception to March 2023, with no restrictions on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing NPPV as add-on therapy to usual care versus usual care for children hospitalised for acute asthma exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs randomising 60 children with acute asthma to NPPV and 60 children to control. All included trials assessed the effects of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) for acute asthma in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) setting. None of the trials used continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The controls received standard care. The median age of children ranged from three to six years, and asthma severity ranged from moderate to severe. Our primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and asthma symptom score. Secondary outcomes were non-serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, arterial blood gases and pH, pneumonia, cost, and PICU length of stay. None of the trials reported any deaths or serious adverse events (except one trial that reported intubation rate). Two trials reported asthma symptom score, each demonstrating reductions in asthma symptoms in the BiPAP group. In one trial, the asthma symptom score was (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.70 to -0.30, P = 0.03; 19 children) lower in the BiPAP group. In the other trial, a cross-over trial, BiPAP was associated with a lower mean asthma symptom score (MD -3.7; 16 children; very low certainty evidence) before cross-over, but investigators did not report a standard deviation, and it could not be estimated from the first phase of the trial before cross-over. The reduction in both trials was above our predefined minimal important difference. Overall, NPPV with standard care may reduce asthma symptom score compared to standard care alone, but the evidence is very uncertain. The only reported serious adverse event was intubation rate in one trial. The trial had an intubation rate of 40% and showed that BiPAP may result in a large reduction in intubation rate (risk ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; 78 children), but the evidence is very uncertain. Post hoc analysis showed that BiPAP may result in a slight decrease in length of PICU stay (MD -0.87 day, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.22; 100 children), but the evidence is very uncertain. Meta-analysis or Trial Sequential Analysis was not possible because of insufficient reporting and different scoring systems. All three trials had high risk of bias with serious imprecision of results, leading to very low certainty of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The currently available evidence for NNPV is uncertain. NPPV may lead to an improvement in asthma symptom score, decreased intubation rate, and slightly shorter PICU stay; however, the evidence is of very low certainty. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are warranted.

Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure Versus Nasal CPAP for the Prevention of Extubation Failure in Infants After Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Extubation early in the postoperative period is beneficial to the recovery and rehabilitation of patients. This study compared the postoperative extubation failure rates among infants who received postextubation respiratory support by either bi-level positive airway pressure (BPAP) or nasal CPAP following cardiac surgery.

METHODS

This was a single-center randomized controlled trial registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (number ChiCTR2000041453) and was conducted between January 2020 and March 2021. Ventilated infants who underwent cardiac surgery were randomized to either a BPAP or a nasal CPAP group for ventilatory support following extubation. The primary outcome measure was the extubation failure rate within 48 h.

RESULTS

The analyses included 186 subjects. Treatment failure necessitating re-intubation was noted in 14 of the 93 infants (15%) in the BPAP group and in 11 of the 93 infants (12%) in the nasal CPAP group (P = .52). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups regarding the duration of noninvasive ventilation (P = .54), total enteral feeding time (P = .59), or complications (P = .85). We found that both the BPAP group and the nasal CPAP group showed significantly improved oxygenation and relief of respiratory distress after treatment. However, the P_aCO2 level within 24 h was significantly lower in the BPAP group (P = .001) than in the CPAP group. Additionally, the P_aO2 /F_IO2 in the BPAP group was significantly higher than in the nasal CPAP group at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after treatment (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of BPAP for postextubation respiratory support was not inferior to nasal CPAP in infants after cardiac surgery. Moreover, BPAP was shown to be superior to nasal CPAP in improving oxygenation and carbon dioxide clearance.

High-flow nasal cannula in children with asthma exacerbation: A review of current evidence

Asthma is the commonest obstructive airway disease and the leading cause of morbidity in children. In the pediatric population, acute exacerbations of asthma are a frequent cause of presentations and hospital admissions. An acute asthma exacerbation is potentially life-threatening; it is predominantly treated using conventional oxygen therapy with bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids. The treatment of those who do not respond to conventional therapy is escalated to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) before invasive ventilation. Although NIPPV has demonstrated benefits and safety, it still has limitations such as treatment intolerance caused mainly by discomfort and complications. High-flow oxygen therapy administered through a nasal cannula (HFNC) provides respiratory support with adequate airway humidity and has demonstrated safety and benefits in clinical practice. In the present review, we discuss HFNC and variations in HFNC use, focusing on its feasibility and current evidence of using it on children with asthma exacerbations.

High-flow nasal cannula and bilevel positive airway pressure for pediatric status asthmaticus: a single center, retrospective descriptive and comparative cohort study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to describe patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for children hospitalized for status asthmaticus (SA) receiving high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP).

METHODS

We performed a single center, retrospective cohort study among 39 children admitted for SA aged 5-17 years from January 2016 to May 2019 to a quaternary pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Cohorts were defined by BiPAP versus HFNC exposure and assessed to determine if differences existed in demographics, anthropometrics, comorbidities, asthma severity indices, historical factors, duration of noninvasive ventilation, and asthma-related clinical outcomes (i.e. length of stay, mechanical ventilation rates, exposure to concurrent sedatives/anxiolysis, and rate of adjunctive therapy exposure).

RESULTS

Thirty-three percent (n = 13) received HFNC (33%) and 67% (n = 26) BiPAP. Children receiving BiPAP had greater age (10.9 ± 3.7 vs. 6.8 ± 2.2 years, P < 0.01), asthma severity (proportion with severe NHLBI classification: 38% vs. 0%, P < 0.01; median pediatric asthma severity score: 13[12,14] vs. 10[9,12], P < 0.01), previous PICU admissions (62% vs. 15%, P = 0.01), frequency of prescribed anxiolysis/sedation (42% vs. 8%, P = 0.02), and median duration of continuous albuterol (1.7[1,3.1] vs. 0.9[0.7,1.6] days, P = 0.03) compared to those on HFNC. Those on HFNC more commonly were treated comorbid bacterial pneumonia (69% vs. 19%, P < 0.01). No differences in NIV duration, mortality, mechanical ventilation rates, or LOS were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest a trial of BiPAP or HFNC appears well tolerated in children with SA. Prospective trials are needed to establish modality superiority and identify patient or clinical characteristics that prompt use of HFNC over BiPAP.

Extracorporeal and advanced therapies for progressive refractory near-fatal acute severe asthma in children

Asthma is the most common chronic illness and is one of the most common medical emergencies in children. Progressive refractory near-fatal asthma requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation can lead to death. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can provide adequate gas exchange during acute respiratory failure although data on outcomes in children requiring ECMO support for status asthmaticus is sparse with one study reporting survival rates of nearly 85% with asthma being one of the best outcome subsets for patients with refractory respiratory failure requiring ECMO support. We describe the current literature on the use of ECMO and other advanced extracorporeal therapies available for children with acute severe asthma. We also review other advanced invasive and noninvasive therapies in acute severe asthma both before and while on ECMO support.

Reducing post-extubation failure rates in very preterm infants: is BiPAP better than CPAP?

Background and Aim: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is currently used in neonates after mechanical ventilation though it may occasionally be associated with air leaks syndromes or it may fail to support the baby. The pressure difference offered by bilevel continuous positive distending pressure (BiPAP) respect to CPAP may be an advantage to the spontaneously breathing patient. In this study, we compared the efficacy of CPAP and BiPAP in the firstweek post-extubation in a series of very preterm infants.Methods: Inborn neonates less than 30 weeks of gestational age who were intubated shortly after birth from January 2011 to December 2017 were enrolled in a retrospective study. The attending clinician assessed the patients for non-invasive respiratory support readiness and allocated them to CPAP (PEEP 4-6 cmH₂O) or BiPAP (PEEP 4-5 cmH₂O, rate 10-40; Thigh 0.7-1.2; upper-pressure level 8-10 cmH₂O). Both techniques were compared for preventing extubation failure within 7 days from extubation as defined per local protocol (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were: definitive failure of extubation, pneumothorax during non-invasive respiratory support, periventricular leukomalacia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, sepsis, patent ductus arteriosus and retinopathy of prematurity at discharge.Results: We enrolled 134 neonates; the CPAP group included 89 babies while 45 received BiPAP. Patients did not differ for their general characteristics (EG, antenatal steroids, incidence of SGA, maternal hypertension, surfactant replacement therapy). Short term extubation failure was significantly higher in the former group (23/89 in CPAP vs 5/45 in BiPAP; p = .005). No infant developed air leak syndrome. Secondary outcomes were comparable between groups. Multivariate analysis showed that on the whole population the extubation failure was correlated to the insurgence of late-onset sepsis.Conclusion: BiPAP safely reduced early extubation failure compared to CPAP in our cohort of very preterm neonates within 7 days from extubation.