中度至重度急性支气管炎患儿使用高流量鼻导管与鼻刺气泡持续气道正压疗法的随机对照试验:随机对照试验。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-19 DOI:10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521
Malini Maya, Ramachandran Rameshkumar, Tamil Selvan, Chinnaiah Govindhareddy Delhikumar
{"title":"中度至重度急性支气管炎患儿使用高流量鼻导管与鼻刺气泡持续气道正压疗法的随机对照试验:随机对照试验。","authors":"Malini Maya, Ramachandran Rameshkumar, Tamil Selvan, Chinnaiah Govindhareddy Delhikumar","doi":"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus nasal prong bubble continuous positive airway pressure (b-CPAP) in children with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomized controlled trial was carried out from August 2019 to February 2022. (Clinical Trials Registry of India number CTRI/2019/07/020402).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Pediatric emergency ward and ICU within a tertiary care center in India.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Children 1-23 months old with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Comparison of HFNC with b-CPAP, using a primary outcome of treatment failure within 24 hours of randomization, as defined by any of: 1) a 1-point increase in modified Wood's clinical asthma score (m-WCAS) above baseline, 2) a rise in respiratory rate (RR) greater than 10 per minute from baseline, and 3) escalation in respiratory support. The secondary outcomes were success rate after crossover, if any, need for mechanical ventilation (invasive/noninvasive), local skin lesions, length of hospital stay, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 118 children analyzed by intention-to-treat, HFNC ( n = 59) versus b-CPAP ( n = 59) was associated with a lower failure rate (23.7% vs. 42.4%; relative risk [95% CI], RR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.97], p = 0.031). The Cox proportion model confirmed a lower hazard of treatment failure in the HFNC group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.48 [95% CI, 0.25-0.94], p = 0.032). No crossover was noted. A lower proportion escalated to noninvasive ventilation in the HFNC group (15.3%) versus the b-CPAP group (15.3% vs. 39% [RR 0.39 (95% CI, 0.20-0.77)], p = 0.004). The HFNC group had a longer median (interquartile range) duration of oxygen therapy (4 [3-6] vs. 3 [3-5] d; p = 0.012) and hospital stay (6 [5-8.5] vs. 5 [4-7] d, p = 0.021). No significant difference was noted in other secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In children aged one to 23 months with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis, the use of HFNC therapy as opposed to b-CPAP for early respiratory support is associated with a lower failure rate and, secondarily, a lower risk of escalation to mechanical ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19760,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Nasal Prong Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Children With Moderate to Severe Acute Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Malini Maya, Ramachandran Rameshkumar, Tamil Selvan, Chinnaiah Govindhareddy Delhikumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus nasal prong bubble continuous positive airway pressure (b-CPAP) in children with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomized controlled trial was carried out from August 2019 to February 2022. (Clinical Trials Registry of India number CTRI/2019/07/020402).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Pediatric emergency ward and ICU within a tertiary care center in India.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Children 1-23 months old with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Comparison of HFNC with b-CPAP, using a primary outcome of treatment failure within 24 hours of randomization, as defined by any of: 1) a 1-point increase in modified Wood's clinical asthma score (m-WCAS) above baseline, 2) a rise in respiratory rate (RR) greater than 10 per minute from baseline, and 3) escalation in respiratory support. The secondary outcomes were success rate after crossover, if any, need for mechanical ventilation (invasive/noninvasive), local skin lesions, length of hospital stay, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 118 children analyzed by intention-to-treat, HFNC ( n = 59) versus b-CPAP ( n = 59) was associated with a lower failure rate (23.7% vs. 42.4%; relative risk [95% CI], RR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.97], p = 0.031). The Cox proportion model confirmed a lower hazard of treatment failure in the HFNC group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.48 [95% CI, 0.25-0.94], p = 0.032). No crossover was noted. A lower proportion escalated to noninvasive ventilation in the HFNC group (15.3%) versus the b-CPAP group (15.3% vs. 39% [RR 0.39 (95% CI, 0.20-0.77)], p = 0.004). The HFNC group had a longer median (interquartile range) duration of oxygen therapy (4 [3-6] vs. 3 [3-5] d; p = 0.012) and hospital stay (6 [5-8.5] vs. 5 [4-7] d, p = 0.021). No significant difference was noted in other secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In children aged one to 23 months with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis, the use of HFNC therapy as opposed to b-CPAP for early respiratory support is associated with a lower failure rate and, secondarily, a lower risk of escalation to mechanical ventilation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003521","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较高流量鼻插管(HFNC)与鼻锥气泡持续气道正压(b-CPAP)对中度严重急性支气管炎患儿的治疗效果:比较高流量鼻插管(HFNC)与鼻锥气泡持续气道正压(b-CPAP)在中重度急性支气管炎患儿中的应用:随机对照试验于2019年8月至2022年2月进行。(印度临床试验注册中心编号:CTRI/2019/07/020402):印度一家三级医疗中心的儿科急诊病房和重症监护室:干预措施:干预措施:比较 HFNC 和 b-CPAP,主要结果为随机分配后 24 小时内治疗失败,其定义为以下任一情况1)改良伍德临床哮喘评分(m-WCAS)比基线上升 1 分;2)呼吸频率(RR)比基线上升超过 10 次/分钟;3)呼吸支持升级。次要结果是交叉后的成功率(如有)、机械通气需求(有创/无创)、局部皮肤损伤、住院时间和并发症:在按意向治疗分析的 118 名儿童中,HFNC(59 人)与 b-CPAP (59 人)相比,失败率较低(23.7% 对 42.4%;相对风险 [95% CI],RR 0.56 [95% CI,0.32-0.97],P = 0.031)。Cox 比例模型证实,HFNC 组治疗失败的风险较低(调整后的风险比为 0.48 [95% CI, 0.25-0.94],p = 0.032)。未发现交叉治疗。与 b-CPAP 组(15.3% 对 39% [RR 0.39 (95% CI, 0.20-0.77)], p = 0.004)相比,HFNC 组(15.3%)升级到无创通气的比例较低。HFNC 组的氧疗中位数(四分位数间距)持续时间(4 [3-6] d vs. 3 [3-5] d;p = 0.012)和住院时间(6 [5-8.5] d vs. 5 [4-7] d;p = 0.021)更长。其他次要结果无明显差异:结论:对于 1 到 23 个月大的中度到重度急性支气管炎患儿,在早期呼吸支持中使用 HFNC 治疗与使用 b-CPAP 治疗相比,失败率更低,其次,升级到机械通气的风险也更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Nasal Prong Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Children With Moderate to Severe Acute Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives: To compare high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus nasal prong bubble continuous positive airway pressure (b-CPAP) in children with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis.

Design: A randomized controlled trial was carried out from August 2019 to February 2022. (Clinical Trials Registry of India number CTRI/2019/07/020402).

Setting: Pediatric emergency ward and ICU within a tertiary care center in India.

Patients: Children 1-23 months old with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis.

Intervention: Comparison of HFNC with b-CPAP, using a primary outcome of treatment failure within 24 hours of randomization, as defined by any of: 1) a 1-point increase in modified Wood's clinical asthma score (m-WCAS) above baseline, 2) a rise in respiratory rate (RR) greater than 10 per minute from baseline, and 3) escalation in respiratory support. The secondary outcomes were success rate after crossover, if any, need for mechanical ventilation (invasive/noninvasive), local skin lesions, length of hospital stay, and complications.

Results: In 118 children analyzed by intention-to-treat, HFNC ( n = 59) versus b-CPAP ( n = 59) was associated with a lower failure rate (23.7% vs. 42.4%; relative risk [95% CI], RR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.97], p = 0.031). The Cox proportion model confirmed a lower hazard of treatment failure in the HFNC group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.48 [95% CI, 0.25-0.94], p = 0.032). No crossover was noted. A lower proportion escalated to noninvasive ventilation in the HFNC group (15.3%) versus the b-CPAP group (15.3% vs. 39% [RR 0.39 (95% CI, 0.20-0.77)], p = 0.004). The HFNC group had a longer median (interquartile range) duration of oxygen therapy (4 [3-6] vs. 3 [3-5] d; p = 0.012) and hospital stay (6 [5-8.5] vs. 5 [4-7] d, p = 0.021). No significant difference was noted in other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: In children aged one to 23 months with moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis, the use of HFNC therapy as opposed to b-CPAP for early respiratory support is associated with a lower failure rate and, secondarily, a lower risk of escalation to mechanical ventilation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
991
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Critical Care Medicine is written for the entire critical care team: pediatricians, neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurses, and others who deal with pediatric patients who are critically ill or injured. International in scope, with editorial board members and contributors from around the world, the Journal includes a full range of scientific content, including clinical articles, scientific investigations, solicited reviews, and abstracts from pediatric critical care meetings. Additionally, the Journal includes abstracts of selected articles published in Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish translations - making news of advances in the field available to pediatric and neonatal intensive care practitioners worldwide.
×
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