High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy for the Treatment of Children <2 Years With Mild to Moderate Respiratory Failure Due to Pneumonia

The effect of NHFOV on hemodynamics in mild and moderately preterm neonates: a randomized clinical trial

The aim of this study is to study cardio-respiratory effects of nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) vs. NCPAP as an initial mode of ventilation in moderate-late-preterm infants. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in NICU of Alexandria University Maternity Hospital (AUMH). One-hundred late-moderate-preterm infants were randomly assigned to either NHFOV-group (n = 50) or NCPAP-group (n = 50). For both groups, functional echocardiography was performed in the first 24 h to detect hemodynamic changes and respiratory outcome was monitored throughout the hospital stay. The main outcomes were hemodynamic measurements and myocardial function using functional echocardiography of those infants along with the respiratory outcome and complications. Kaplan-Meier survival plot was used representing time course of NCPAP and NHFOV failure. Left ventricular output values were not significantly different in both groups with median 202 ml/kg /min and IQR (176-275) in NCPAP-group and 226 ml/kg/min with IQR (181-286) in NHFOV group. Nevertheless, ejection fraction and fractional shortening were significantly higher in NHFOV-group with P 0.001. The time to weaning, the time to reach 30%-FIO2, the need for invasive ventilation, oxygen support duration, and maximal-FIO2 were significantly more in NCAPAP group.     Conclusion: NHFOV is an effective and promising tool of non-invasive-ventilation which can be used as a primary modality of respiratory support in preterm infants with variable forms of respiratory distress syndrome without causing detrimental effect on hemodynamics or significant respiratory complications.     Trial registration: NCT05706428 (registered on January 21, 2023). What is Known: • NHFOV might be beneficial as a secondary mode of ventilation and might have an impact on hemodynamics. What is New: • NHFOV can be used as an initial mode of ventilation with CDP beyond the reported pressure limits of CPAP without causing neither CO2 retention nor adverse hemodynamic consequences.

High-flow nasal oxygen in infants and children for early respiratory management of pneumonia-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: the CENTURI randomized clinical trial

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of early high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and low-flow oxygen support (LFOS) in children under 5 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to severe community-acquired pneumonia in low-middle-income countries.

Methods

An open-label randomized clinical trial enrolled children aged 2-59 months with AHRF due to severe community-acquired pneumonia and randomized into HFNC and LFOS. In the LFOS group, the patient received cold wall oxygen humidified by bubbling through sterile water administered through simple nasal prongs at a fixed flow rate of 2 L/min. In the HFNC group, the patient received humidified, heated (37 °C), high-flow oxygen at a flow rate assigned based on weight range, with a titratable oxygen fraction. The primary outcome was treatment failure in 72 h (escalating the respiratory support method using any modality other than primary intervention).

Results

Data was analyzed intention-to-treat (HFNC = 124; LFOS = 120). Median (IQR) age was 12 (6-20) and 11 (6-27) months, respectively. Treatment failure occurred in a significantly lower proportion in the HFNC group (7.3%, n = 9/124) as compared to the LFOS group (20%, n = 24/120) (relative risk = 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; p = 0.004; adjusted hazard ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.73; p = 0.006). The intubation rate was significantly lower in the HFNC group (7.3%, n = 9/124 vs. 16.7%, n = 20/120; relative risk = 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92, p = 0.023). There were no significant differences noted in other secondary outcomes. No mortality occurred.

Conclusion

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy used as early respiratory support in children under 5 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe community-acquired pneumonia was associated with significantly lower treatment failure compared with standard low-flow oxygen support.

Trial registration

CTRI/2016/04/006788. Registered 01 April 2016, https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44253-024-00031-8.

High-flow nasal cannula use in pediatric patients for other indications than acute bronchiolitis-a scoping review of randomized controlled trials

The objective of the study is to summarize current literature on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use for different indications in pediatric patient excluding acute bronchiolitis and neonatal care. The study design is a systematic scoping review. Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in February, 2023. All abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers. Randomized controlled trials focusing on HFNC use in pediatric patients (age < 18 years) were included. Studies focusing on acute bronchiolitis and neonatal respiratory conditions were excluded. Study quality was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The main outcomes are patient groups and indications, key outcomes, and risk of bias. After screening 1276 abstracts, we included 22 full reports. Risk of bias was low in 11 and high in 5 studies. We identified three patient groups where HFNC has been studied: first, children requiring primary respiratory support for acute respiratory failure; second, perioperative use for either intraprocedural oxygenation or postoperative respiratory support; and third, post-extubation care in pediatric intensive care for other than postoperative patients. Clinical and laboratory parameters were assessed as key outcomes. None of the studies analyzed cost-effectiveness.Conclusion: This systematic scoping review provides an overview of current evidence for HFNC use in pediatric patients. Future studies should aim for better quality and include economic evaluation with cost-effectiveness analysis.Protocol registration: Protocol has been published https://osf.io/a3y46/ .

High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in term infants

BACKGROUND

Respiratory failure or respiratory distress in infants is the most common reason for non-elective admission to hospitals and neonatal intensive care units. Non-invasive methods of respiratory support have become the preferred mode of treating respiratory problems as they avoid some of the complications associated with intubation and mechanical ventilation. High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is increasingly being used as a method of non-invasive respiratory support. However, the evidence pertaining to its use in term infants (defined as infants ≥ 37 weeks gestational age to the end of the neonatal period (up to one month postnatal age)) is limited and there is no consensus of opinion regarding the safety and efficacy HFNC in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for respiratory support in term infants when compared with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in December 2022: Cochrane CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; LILACS; Web of Science; Scopus. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and performed a supplementary search of Google Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in infants ≥ 37 weeks gestational age up to one month postnatal age (the end of the neonatal period).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta-analysis using mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For statistically significant RRs, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence for clinically important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (654 participants) in this review. Six of these studies (625 participants) contributed data to our primary analyses. Four studies contributed to our comparison of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for respiratory support in term infants. The outcome of death was reported in two studies (439 infants) but there were no events in either group. HFNC may have little to no effect on treatment failure, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.04; 3 trials, 452 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The outcome of chronic lung disease (need for supplemental oxygen at 28 days of life) was reported in one study (375 participants) but there were no events in either group. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support (any form of non-invasive respiratory support with or without supplemental oxygen), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 days, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.61; 4 trials, 530 infants; very low-certainty evidence). HFNC likely results in little to no difference in the length of stay at the intensive care unit (ICU) (MD 0.90 days, 95% CI -0.31 to 2.12; 3 trials, 452 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC may reduce the incidence of nasal trauma (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.66; 1 trial, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and abdominal overdistension (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71; 1 trial, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Two studies contributed to our analysis of HFNC versus low flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (LFNC) (supplemental oxygen up to a maximum flow rate of 2 L/min). The outcome of death was reported in both studies (95 infants) but there were no events in either group. The evidence suggests that HFNC may reduce treatment failure slightly (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92; 2 trials, 95 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported results for the outcome of chronic lung disease (need for supplemental oxygen at 28 days of life). HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support (MD -0.07 days, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.69; 1 trial, 74 infants; very low-certainty evidence), length of stay at the ICU (MD 0.49 days, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.81; 1 trial, 74 infants; very low-certainty evidence), or hospital length of stay (MD -0.60 days, 95% CI -2.07 to 0.86; 2 trials, 95 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse events was an outcome reported in both studies (95 infants) but there were no events in either group. The risk of bias across outcomes was generally low, although there were some concerns of bias. The certainty of evidence across outcomes ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded due to risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with CPAP, HFNC may result in little to no difference in treatment failure. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support, but the evidence is very uncertain. HFNC likely results in little to no difference in the length of stay at the intensive care unit. HFNC may reduce the incidence of nasal trauma and abdominal overdistension, but the evidence is very uncertain. When compared with LFNC, HFNC may reduce treatment failure slightly. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support, length of stay at the ICU, or hospital length of stay, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to enable the formulation of evidence-based guidelines on the use of HFNC for respiratory support in term infants. Larger, methodologically robust trials are required to further evaluate the possible health benefits or harms of HFNC in this patient population.

Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute respiratory failure (ARF) in pediatric patients.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov with a last update on July 31, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

We included RCTs comparing NIV with any comparator (standard oxygen therapy and high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]) in pediatric patients with ARF. We excluded studies performed on neonates and on chronic respiratory failure patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

Baseline characteristics, intubation rate, mortality, and hospital and ICU length of stays were extracted by trained investigators.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 15 RCTs (2,679 patients) for the final analyses. The intubation rate was 109 of 945 (11.5%) in the NIV group, and 158 of 1,086 (14.5%) in the control group (risk ratio, 0.791; 95% CI, 0.629-0.996; p = 0.046; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat = 31). Findings were strengthened after removing studies with intervention duration shorter than an hour and after excluding studies with cross-over as rescue treatment. There was no difference in mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stays.

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric patients, NIV applied for ARF might reduce the intubation rate compared with standard oxygen therapy or HFNC. No difference in mortality was observed.

Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Children: State of the Art

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is a non-invasive ventilatory support that has gained interest over the last ten years as a valid alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in children with respiratory failure. Its safety, availability, tolerability, and easy management have resulted its increasing usage, even outside intensive care units. Despite its wide use in daily clinical practice, there is still a lack of guidelines to standardize the use of HFNC. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge about the mechanisms of action, safety, clinical effects, and tolerance of HFNC in children, and to propose a clinical practices algorithm for children with respiratory failure.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy: Physiological Mechanisms and Clinical Applications in Children

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has rapidly become a popular modality of respiratory support in pediatric care. This is undoubtedly due to its ease of use and safety, which allows it to be used in a wide variety of settings, ranging from pediatric intensive care to patients' homes. HFNC devices make it possible to regulate gas flow and temperature, as well as allowing some nebulized drugs to be administered, features very useful in children, in which the balance between therapeutic effectiveness and adherence to treatment is pivotal. Although the physiological effects of HFNC are still under investigation, their mechanisms of action include delivery of fixed concentration of oxygen, generation of positive end-expiratory pressure, reduction of the work of breathing and clearance of the nasopharyngeal dead space, while providing optimal gas conditioning. Nevertheless, current evidence supports the use of HFNC mainly in moderate-to-severe bronchiolitis, whereas for asthma exacerbations and breath sleeping disorders there is a lack of randomized controlled trials comparing HFNC to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV), which are essentials for the identification of response and non-response predictors. In this regard, the development of clinical guidelines for HFNC, including flow settings, indications, and contraindications is urgently needed.

Prevalence and risk factors of discomfort in infants with severe bronchiolitis

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of discomfort in infants with severe bronchiolitis supported by noninvasive ventilation and to identify its potential risk factors.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective observational study. Discomfort was assessed using the EDIN (Echelle de Douleur et d'Inconfort du Nouveau-né) scale.

RESULTS

Ninety-one infants (median age 34 days [Interquartile IQR 19-55], 52 (57%) boys) were included in our study. Overall, no patient had a mean EDIN score higher than 8 on Days 1, 2 and 3. On Days 1 and 2, patients supported by bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) had a higher EDIN score compared with other patients (3.3 [SD 2.5] versus 2.6 [SD 2.2] on Day 1 and 2.9 (SD 2.1) versus 2.3 (SD 2.2) on Day 2, both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe bronchiolitis and supported by any type of noninvasive ventilation had a low degree of discomfort during the first 3 days of ICU stay. Patients requiring bilevel noninvasive ventilation appeared to have a higher degree of discomfort, while we found no correlation between the level of discomfort and the degree of respiratory distress.

Clinical review of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in pediatric acute respiratory distress

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) causes much morbidity and mortality in children. In mild to moderate ARDS, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is the treatment of choice. Recently, there are 2 kinds of NIV used Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC). Both of them can be used in various respiratory distress and have different physiological mechanisms. The effectiveness to improve the clinical parameter, morbidity, and mortality are similar between CPAP and HFNC. However, HFNC application is more tolerated in acute respiratory distress in children, with less nasal injury, lower heart rate inflicted, and better comfort index score.

•

CPAP & HFNC widely used in pediatric acute respiratory distress.

•

Both modalities have a different characteristics, beneficial in certain condition.

•

The usage of each modalities depends on the causes of the respiratory distress.

Non-Invasive Ventilation Strategies in Children With Acute Lower Respiratory Infection: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Multiple non-invasive ventilation (NIV) modalities have been identified that may improve the prognosis of pediatric patients with acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI). However, the effect of NIV in children with ALRI remains inconclusive. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various NIV strategies including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP), and standard oxygen therapy in children with ALRI and the need for supplemental oxygen. Methods: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to July 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different NIV modalities for children with ALRI and the need for supplemental oxygen were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Primary outcomes were intubation and treatment failure rates. Secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses within the random-effects model were used to synthesize data. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results: A total of 21 RCTs involving 5,342 children were included. Compared with standard oxygen therapy, CPAP (OR: 0.40, 95% CrI: 0.16-0.90, moderate quality) was associated with a lower risk of intubation. Furthermore, both CPAP (OR: 0.42, 95% CrI: 0.19-0.81, low quality) and HFNC (OR: 0.51, 95% CrI: 0.29-0.81, low quality) reduced treatment failure compared with standard oxygen therapy. There were no significant differences among all interventions for in-hospital mortality. Network meta-regression showed that there were no statistically significant subgroup effects. Conclusion: Among children with ALRI and the need for supplemental oxygen, CPAP reduced the risk of intubation when compared to standard oxygen therapy. Both CPAP and HFNC were associated with a lower risk of treatment failure than standard oxygen therapy. However, evidence is still lacking to show benefits concerning mortality between different interventions. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm our results. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=172156, identifier: CRD42020172156.

Outcomes of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Young Children With Respiratory Distress: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been associated with a lower risk of treatment failure than high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in pediatric patients with respiratory distress and severe hypoxemia. However, the publication of new trials on children younger than 2 years warrants a review and updated meta-analysis of the evidence. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric patients with acute respiratory distress that examined outcomes of interest by the two usual management modalities (CPAP and HFNC). We used pooled adjusted relative risks (RRs) to present the strength of association for categorical outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes. Results: We included data from six articles in the meta-analysis. The quality of the studies was deemed good. Included studies had infants with either acute viral bronchiolitis or pneumonia. Compared to CPAP, HFNC treatment carried a significantly higher risk of treatment failure [RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.99; I ² = 0.0%, n = 6]. Patients receiving HFNC had a lower risk of adverse events, mainly nasal trauma [RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.62; I ² = 0.0%, n = 2] than the others. The risk of mortality [RR, 3.33; 95% CI, 0.95, 11.67; n = 1] and need for intubation [RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.97, 2.94; I ² = 0.0%, n = 5] were statistically similar between the two management strategies; however, the direction of the pooled effect sizes is indicative of a nearly three times higher mortality and two times higher risk of intubation in those receiving HFNC. We found no statistically significant differences between the two management modalities in terms of modified woods clinical asthma score (M-WCAS; denoting severity of respiratory distress) and hospitalization length (days). Patients receiving HFNC had the time to treatment failure reduced by approximately 3 h [WMD, -3.35; 95% CI, -4.93 to -1.76; I ² = 0.0%, n = 2] compared to those on CPAP. Conclusions: Among children with respiratory distress younger than 2 years, HFNC appears to be associated with higher risk of treatment failure and possibly, an increased risk of need for intubation and mortality. Adequately powered trials are needed to confirm which management strategy is better.