Comparison of Two Weaning Methods from Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 ALLERGY
Muhammed Udurgucu, Hatice Albayrak, Hatice Elif Kinik Kaya, Nazik Yener
{"title":"Comparison of Two Weaning Methods from Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.","authors":"Muhammed Udurgucu,&nbsp;Hatice Albayrak,&nbsp;Hatice Elif Kinik Kaya,&nbsp;Nazik Yener","doi":"10.1089/ped.2021.0229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background and Objective:</i></b> Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is widely used in children, there is no consensus on the methods for starting, maintenance, and weaning. The aim of this study was to compare weaning methods in children. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The study included all patients in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) who were started on HFNC treatment. The respiratory assessment score was used in the decisions for starting, continuing, and weaning from HFNC. The patients who responded and for whom weaning was planned were randomized by month into 2 groups as directly weaned from HFNC and weaned by reducing the flow. Success rates, treatment, and length of stay (LOS) in weaning methods were compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of the 145 patients initially included in the study, 32 (22%) were excluded, and analysis was made of 113 patients. Successful weaning from HFNC was obtained in 76.9% of the patients, in 82.1% of flow weaning, and 73.6% of direct weaning, with no statistically significant difference determined between the groups (<i>P</i> = 0.286). The median duration of HFNC and the median LOS in PICU were determined to be statistically significantly shorter in direct weaning than in flow weaning [36 h interquartile range (IQR) 24-48 h] versus 60 h (IQR 60-72 h), <i>P</i> < 0.001 and 6 days (4-14 days) versus 9.5 days (5.25-20.75 days, <i>P</i> = 0.043, respectively). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In patients who responded to HFNC in PICU, the responses to direct weaning and flow reduction were seen to be similar. In patients directly weaned off, both the HFNC duration and LOS in PICU were significantly shorter.</p>","PeriodicalId":54389,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Allergy Immunology and Pulmonology","volume":"35 2","pages":"79-85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9247675/pdf/ped.2021.0229.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Allergy Immunology and Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ped.2021.0229","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objective: Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is widely used in children, there is no consensus on the methods for starting, maintenance, and weaning. The aim of this study was to compare weaning methods in children. Methods: The study included all patients in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) who were started on HFNC treatment. The respiratory assessment score was used in the decisions for starting, continuing, and weaning from HFNC. The patients who responded and for whom weaning was planned were randomized by month into 2 groups as directly weaned from HFNC and weaned by reducing the flow. Success rates, treatment, and length of stay (LOS) in weaning methods were compared. Results: Of the 145 patients initially included in the study, 32 (22%) were excluded, and analysis was made of 113 patients. Successful weaning from HFNC was obtained in 76.9% of the patients, in 82.1% of flow weaning, and 73.6% of direct weaning, with no statistically significant difference determined between the groups (P = 0.286). The median duration of HFNC and the median LOS in PICU were determined to be statistically significantly shorter in direct weaning than in flow weaning [36 h interquartile range (IQR) 24-48 h] versus 60 h (IQR 60-72 h), P < 0.001 and 6 days (4-14 days) versus 9.5 days (5.25-20.75 days, P = 0.043, respectively). Conclusion: In patients who responded to HFNC in PICU, the responses to direct weaning and flow reduction were seen to be similar. In patients directly weaned off, both the HFNC duration and LOS in PICU were significantly shorter.

儿童重症监护病房加热加湿高流量鼻插管两种脱机方法的比较。
背景与目的:虽然高流量鼻插管(HFNC)在儿童中广泛应用,但在启动、维持和脱机的方法上尚未达成共识。本研究的目的是比较儿童的断奶方法。方法:本研究纳入儿科重症监护病房(PICU)所有开始HFNC治疗的患者。呼吸评估评分用于决定开始、继续和脱离HFNC。有反应和计划断奶的患者按月随机分为直接从HFNC断奶组和通过减少流量断奶组。比较了两种脱机方法的成功率、治疗和停留时间(LOS)。结果:在最初纳入研究的145例患者中,32例(22%)被排除,对113例患者进行了分析。HFNC脱机成功率为76.9%,流脱机成功率为82.1%,直接脱机成功率为73.6%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.286)。直接脱机组HFNC的中位持续时间和中位LOS均明显短于流脱机组[36 h四分位数间距(IQR) 24-48 h]和60 h (IQR 60-72 h), P = 0.043)。结论:在PICU对HFNC有反应的患者中,直接脱机和减少流量的反应是相似的。在直接断奶的患者中,HFNC持续时间和PICU内的LOS均明显缩短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology is a peer-reviewed journal designed to promote understanding and advance the treatment of respiratory, allergic, and immunologic diseases in children. The Journal delivers original translational, clinical, and epidemiologic research on the most common chronic illnesses of children—asthma and allergies—as well as many less common and rare diseases. It emphasizes the developmental implications of the morphological, physiological, pharmacological, and sociological components of these problems, as well as the impact of disease processes on families. Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology coverage includes: -Functional and genetic immune deficiencies- Interstitial lung diseases- Both common and rare respiratory, allergic, and immunologic diseases- Patient care- Patient education research- Public health policy- International health studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信