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
- PMID: 33304868
- PMCID: PMC7693448
- DOI: 10.3389/fped.2020.590906
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
Abstract
Background: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to further compare the clinical benefits and adverse reactions of HFNC with CPAP in the treatment of mild to moderate respiratory failure due to pneumonia in children below 2 years old. Methods: Using a prospective randomized controlled study method, 84 patients with pneumonia and mild to moderate respiratory failure admitted to the Children's Hospital Affiliated to Chongqing Medical University from January 2018 to December 2019 were randomly divided into the HFNC group and the CPAP group. It was registered as a clinical trial at clinical trials.gov, registration number: ChiCTR2000030463. Results: The analyses included 84 patients. No differences were observed between the two groups in baseline demographic or physiological characteristics. Treatment failure necessitating intubation and transfer to the PICU was noted in six of 43 infants (14%) in the HFNC group, as compared with four of 41 infants (10%) in the CPAP group (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of hospital stay, the duration of non-invasive respiratory support, and mortality. The 10 infants who experienced treatment failure had more severe hypoxemia with lower PaO2/FiO2 (HFNC 182 ± 11.5 and CPAP 172 ± 8.6). We found that both the HFNC group and the CPAP group showed significantly improved oxygenation and relief of respiratory distress after treatment. No differences were observed between the two groups in the development improvement of RR, PaO2, PaCO2, SpO2, and PH. Assessment of the occurrence of adverse events showed that the HFNC group had a lower level of nasal injury, a lower risk of abdominal distension, a lower intensity and frequency of sedation, and better tolerance. Conclusion: HFNC is an effective and safe initial respiratory support treatment in children <2 years with mild to moderate respiratory failure due to pneumonia, and the incidence of intubation and death is very low; concurrently, the comfort and tolerance of HFNC are better. To some extent, HFNC is a well-tolerated alternative to CPAP.
Keywords: CPAP; HFNC; mild to moderate respiratory failure; pneumonia; randomized controlled study.
Copyright © 2020 Liu, Cheng, Li, Tang, Tan and Yang.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Randomized Comparison of Helmet CPAP Versus High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen in Pediatric Respiratory Distress.Respir Care. 2017 Aug;62(8):1036-1042. doi: 10.4187/respcare.05384. Epub 2017 May 9. Respir Care. 2017. PMID: 28487415 Clinical Trial.
-
Safety and effectiveness of bubble continuous positive airway pressure as respiratory support for bronchiolitis in a pediatric ward.Eur J Pediatr. 2022 Dec;181(12):4039-4047. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04616-3. Epub 2022 Sep 21. Eur J Pediatr. 2022. PMID: 36129536 Free PMC article.
-
[Efficacy of high flow nasal oxygen therapy in children with acute respiratory failure].Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2021 Jan 2;59(1):20-26. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112140-20200612-00617. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2021. PMID: 33396999 Chinese.
-
Outcomes of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Young Children With Respiratory Distress: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Front Pediatr. 2021 Nov 5;9:759297. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.759297. eCollection 2021. Front Pediatr. 2021. PMID: 34805049 Free PMC article.
-
High-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure in primary respiratory support for preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Front Pediatr. 2022 Nov 21;10:980024. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.980024. eCollection 2022. Front Pediatr. 2022. PMID: 36479290 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
High-flow nasal cannula is an expensive and clunky placebo: myth or maxim?Breathe (Sheff). 2024 Dec 10;20(3):230185. doi: 10.1183/20734735.0185-2023. eCollection 2024 Oct. Breathe (Sheff). 2024. PMID: 39660088 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Children: State of the Art.Biomedicines. 2022 Sep 21;10(10):2353. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10102353. Biomedicines. 2022. PMID: 36289610 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical review of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in pediatric acute respiratory distress.Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 Jan;73:103180. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103180. Epub 2021 Dec 14. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022. PMID: 34931143 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Non-Invasive Ventilation Strategies in Children With Acute Lower Respiratory Infection: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Front Pediatr. 2021 Dec 2;9:749975. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.749975. eCollection 2021. Front Pediatr. 2021. PMID: 34926341 Free PMC article.
-
High-flow nasal oxygen in infants and children for early respiratory management of pneumonia-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: the CENTURI randomized clinical trial.Intensive Care Med Paediatr Neonatal. 2024;2(1):15. doi: 10.1007/s44253-024-00031-8. Epub 2024 Apr 1. Intensive Care Med Paediatr Neonatal. 2024. PMID: 38567201 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Prevention CfDCa. (2020). Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/nhamcs_emergency/2014_ed_web_tables.pdf (accessed March 07, 2020).
-
- Organization WH (2020). Available online at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ (accessed 1 March, 2020).
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources