Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Jul 12;328(2):162-172.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.9615.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Padmanabhan Ramnarayan et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known.

Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support.

Design, setting, and participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022.

Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation.

Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]).

Conclusions and relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support.

Trial registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Ramnarayan reported receipt of personal fees from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and Sanofi. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Participant Flow in the FIRST-ABC Step-Up Trial
CPAP indicates continuous positive airway pressure; HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula. aNumbers meeting individual exclusion criteria do not add to the total because some patients met more than 1 criterion. bAmong exclusions based on clinical decision, 167 were due to preference for HFNC; 54 were due to preference for CPAP; 73 were due to other reasons (main other clinical reasons were unavailability of a pediatric intensive care bed [precluding initiation of CPAP if randomized to CPAP, whereas HFNC could be delivered on the ward; n = 14], concerns regarding availability of suitable masks for CPAP [n = 7], cardiac disease [n = 7], and concerns regarding wheeze and unsuitability of CPAP [n = 4]); and 31 were due to reasons not specified.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Time to Liberation From Respiratory Support in the Primary Analysis and Per-Protocol Analysis Populations
CPAP indicates continuous positive airway pressure; HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula. Median observation time in the primary analysis set for the HFNC group was 50.0 (IQR, 25.5-96.6) hours and in the CPAP group was 44.8 (IQR, 24.3-92.9) hours; median observation time in the per-protocol analysis set for the HFNC group was 49.9 (IQR, 25.4-95.8) hours and in the CPAP group was 44.7 (IQR, 24.3-90.0) hours.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Subgroup Analysis of the Primary Outcome of Liberation From Respiratory Support in the Primary Analysis Population
CPAP indicates continuous positive airway pressure; Fio2, fraction of inspired oxygen; HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula; Spo2, peripheral oxygen saturation. P values test for an interaction between the subgroup categories and the effect of CPAP vs HFNC in the adjusted Cox regression model. Dashed vertical line indicates margin of noninferiority, 0.75.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet) . Annual Report 2020. PICANet; 2020.
    1. Kneyber MC, Zhang H, Slutsky AS. Ventilator-induced lung injury: similarity and differences between children and adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(3):258-265. doi:10.1164/rccm.201401-0168CP - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wolfler A, Calderini E, Iannella E, et al. ; Network of Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Study Group . Evolution of noninvasive mechanical ventilation use: a cohort study among Italian PICUs. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015;16(5):418-427. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000000387 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith A, França UL, McManus ML. Trends in the use of noninvasive and invasive ventilation for severe asthma. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e20200534. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0534 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pelletier JH, Au AK, Fuhrman D, Clark RSB, Horvat C. Trends in bronchiolitis ICU admissions and ventilation practices: 2010-2019. Pediatrics. 2021;147(6):e2020039115. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-039115 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data