4.2 Article

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for infants with bronchiolitis: Pilot study

Journal

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 373-378

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jpc.12509

Keywords

infant; bronchiolitis; high-flow nasal cannula

Categories

Funding

  1. Mater Children's Hospital Golden Casket Grant
  2. Preston James Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To obtain data on the safety and clinical impact of managing infants with bronchiolitis on the ward with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment. Methods A prospective pilot study was conducted of 61 infants aged HFNC was commenced at 2 L/kg/min, and fraction of inspired oxygen was titrated to oxygen saturation > 94%. A standard-treatment group (n = 33) managed with standard low-flow subnasal oxygen during the same time period was retrospectively identified. Results Admission demographics, heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) were similar in test and standard-treatment groups. Responders and non-responders to HFNC were identified within 60 min of treatment. Non-responders to HFNC requiring paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission showed no change in HR and RR, whereas responders showed decreases in HR and RR (P < 0.02). Patients receiving HFNC were four times less likely to need PICU admission than the standard treatment group (OR 4.086, 95%CI 1.0-8.2; P = 0.043). No adverse events such as pneumothorax, bradycardia, bradypnoea, emergency intubation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation were observed. No patients admitted to the PICU required intubation. Conclusions HFNC treatment in the paediatric ward is safe. Non-responders requiring PICU admission can be identified within the first hour of HFNC treatment by monitoring HR and RR. It is feasible to undertake a randomised controlled trial based on this pilot with the aim of decreasing PICU admissions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available