Wegner A A, Cespedes F P, Godoy M ML, Erices B P, Urrutia C L, Venthur U C, Labbé C M, Riquelme M H, Sanchez J C, Vera V W, Wood V D, Contreras C JC, Urrutia S E. [High flow nasal cannula in infants: Experience in a critical patient unit].
ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2015;
86:173-81. [PMID:
26363858 DOI:
10.1016/j.rchipe.2015.06.003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2014] [Accepted: 02/11/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
The high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a method of respiratory support that is increasingly being used in paediatrics due to its results and safety.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy of HFNC, as well as to evaluate the factors related to its failure and complications associated with its use in infants.
PATIENTS AND METHOD
An analysis was performed on the demographic, clinical, blood gas, and radiological data, as well as the complications of patients connected to a HFNC in a critical care unit between June 2012 and September 2014. A comparison was made between the patients who failed and those who responded to HFNC. A failure was considered as the need for further respiratory support during the first 48hours of connection. The Kolmogorov Smirnov, Mann-Whitney U, chi squared and the Exact Fisher test were used, as well as correlations and a binary logistic regression model for P≤.05.
RESULTS
The study included 109 patients, with a median age and weight: 1 month (0.2-20 months) and 3.7kg (2-10kg); 95 percentile: 3.7 months and 5.7kg, respectively. The most frequent diagnosis and radiological pattern was bronchiolitis (53.2%) and interstitial infiltration (56%). Around 70.6% responded. There was a significant difference between failure and response in the diagnosis (P=.013), radiography (P=018), connection context (P<.0001), pCO2 (median 40.7mmHg [15.4-67 mmHg] versus 47.3mmHg [28.6-71.3mmHg], P=.004) and hours on HFNC (median 60.75hrs [5-621.5 hrs] versus 10.5hrs [1-29 hrs], P<.0001). The OR of the PCO2 ≥ 55mmHg for failure was 2.97 (95% CI; 1.08-8.17; P=.035). No patient died and no complications were recorded.
CONCLUSION
The percentage success observed was similar to that published. In this sample, the failure of HFNC was only associated with an initial pCO2 ≥ 55mmHg. On there being no complications reported as regards it use, it is considered safe, although a randomised, controlled, multicentre study is required to compare and contrast these results.
Collapse