婴儿心脏手术后拔管至高流量鼻插管:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 0.5 Q4 PEDIATRICS
Hannah Stevens, Julien Gallant, Jennifer Foster, David Horne, Kristina Krmpotic
{"title":"婴儿心脏手术后拔管至高流量鼻插管:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Hannah Stevens,&nbsp;Julien Gallant,&nbsp;Jennifer Foster,&nbsp;David Horne,&nbsp;Kristina Krmpotic","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1730933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is commonly used in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) for postextubation respiratory support. This hypothesis-generating retrospective cohort study aimed to compare postextubation PICU length of stay in infants extubated to HFNC and low flow oxygen (LF) in PICU following cardiac surgery. Of 136 infants (newborn to 1 year) who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in PICU following cardiac surgery, 72 (53%) were extubated to HFNC and 64 (47%) to LF. Compared with patients extubated to LF, those extubated to HFNC had significantly longer durations of cardiopulmonary bypass (152 vs. 109 minutes; <i>p</i>  = 0.002), aortic cross-clamp (90 vs. 63 minutes; <i>p</i>  = 0.003), and invasive mechanical ventilation (3.2 vs. 1.6 days; <i>p</i>  < 0.001), although demographic and preoperative clinical variables were similar. No significant difference was observed in postextubation PICU length of stay between HFNC and LF groups in unadjusted analysis (3.3 vs. 2.6 days, respectively; <i>p</i>  = 0.19) and after controlling for potential confounding variables (F [1,125] = 0.17, <i>p</i>  = 0.68, <i>R <sup>2</sup></i>  = 0.16). Escalation of therapy was similar between HFNC and LF groups (8.3 vs. 14.1%; <i>p</i>  = 0.41). HFNC was effective as rescue therapy for six patients in the LF group requiring escalation of therapy. Need for reintubation was similar between HFNC and LF groups (8.3 vs. 4.7%; <i>p</i>  = 0.5). Although extubation to HFNC was associated with a trend toward longer postextubation PICU length of stay and was successfully used as rescue therapy for several infants extubated to LF, our results must be interpreted with caution given the limitations of our study.</p>","PeriodicalId":44426,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10411109/pdf/10-1055-s-0041-1730933.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extubation to High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Infants Following Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Stevens,&nbsp;Julien Gallant,&nbsp;Jennifer Foster,&nbsp;David Horne,&nbsp;Kristina Krmpotic\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0041-1730933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is commonly used in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) for postextubation respiratory support. This hypothesis-generating retrospective cohort study aimed to compare postextubation PICU length of stay in infants extubated to HFNC and low flow oxygen (LF) in PICU following cardiac surgery. Of 136 infants (newborn to 1 year) who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in PICU following cardiac surgery, 72 (53%) were extubated to HFNC and 64 (47%) to LF. Compared with patients extubated to LF, those extubated to HFNC had significantly longer durations of cardiopulmonary bypass (152 vs. 109 minutes; <i>p</i>  = 0.002), aortic cross-clamp (90 vs. 63 minutes; <i>p</i>  = 0.003), and invasive mechanical ventilation (3.2 vs. 1.6 days; <i>p</i>  < 0.001), although demographic and preoperative clinical variables were similar. No significant difference was observed in postextubation PICU length of stay between HFNC and LF groups in unadjusted analysis (3.3 vs. 2.6 days, respectively; <i>p</i>  = 0.19) and after controlling for potential confounding variables (F [1,125] = 0.17, <i>p</i>  = 0.68, <i>R <sup>2</sup></i>  = 0.16). Escalation of therapy was similar between HFNC and LF groups (8.3 vs. 14.1%; <i>p</i>  = 0.41). HFNC was effective as rescue therapy for six patients in the LF group requiring escalation of therapy. Need for reintubation was similar between HFNC and LF groups (8.3 vs. 4.7%; <i>p</i>  = 0.5). Although extubation to HFNC was associated with a trend toward longer postextubation PICU length of stay and was successfully used as rescue therapy for several infants extubated to LF, our results must be interpreted with caution given the limitations of our study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10411109/pdf/10-1055-s-0041-1730933.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1730933\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1730933","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高流量鼻插管(HFNC)治疗通常用于儿科重症监护病房(PICU)拔管后呼吸支持。这项产生假设的回顾性队列研究旨在比较心脏手术后拔管婴儿在PICU中使用HFNC和低流量氧(LF)的PICU停留时间。在136例(新生儿至1岁)心脏手术后在PICU插管和机械通气的婴儿中,72例(53%)拔管至HFNC, 64例(47%)拔管至LF。与拔管至LF的患者相比,拔管至HFNC的患者体外循环时间明显更长(152分钟vs 109分钟;P = 0.002),主动脉交叉钳夹(90分钟vs. 63分钟;P = 0.003),有创机械通气(3.2天vs. 1.6天;p = 0.19),在控制了潜在的混杂变量后(F [1,125] = 0.17, p = 0.68, r2 = 0.16)。HFNC组和LF组的治疗升级相似(8.3 vs 14.1%;P = 0.41)。HFNC作为LF组中需要升级治疗的6例患者的挽救治疗是有效的。HFNC组和LF组的再插管需求相似(8.3 vs. 4.7%;P = 0.5)。尽管拔管至HFNC与拔管后PICU停留时间延长的趋势相关,并成功地用于几例拔管至LF的婴儿的抢救治疗,但考虑到我们研究的局限性,我们的结果必须谨慎解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extubation to High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Infants Following Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is commonly used in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) for postextubation respiratory support. This hypothesis-generating retrospective cohort study aimed to compare postextubation PICU length of stay in infants extubated to HFNC and low flow oxygen (LF) in PICU following cardiac surgery. Of 136 infants (newborn to 1 year) who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in PICU following cardiac surgery, 72 (53%) were extubated to HFNC and 64 (47%) to LF. Compared with patients extubated to LF, those extubated to HFNC had significantly longer durations of cardiopulmonary bypass (152 vs. 109 minutes; p  = 0.002), aortic cross-clamp (90 vs. 63 minutes; p  = 0.003), and invasive mechanical ventilation (3.2 vs. 1.6 days; p  < 0.001), although demographic and preoperative clinical variables were similar. No significant difference was observed in postextubation PICU length of stay between HFNC and LF groups in unadjusted analysis (3.3 vs. 2.6 days, respectively; p  = 0.19) and after controlling for potential confounding variables (F [1,125] = 0.17, p  = 0.68, R 2  = 0.16). Escalation of therapy was similar between HFNC and LF groups (8.3 vs. 14.1%; p  = 0.41). HFNC was effective as rescue therapy for six patients in the LF group requiring escalation of therapy. Need for reintubation was similar between HFNC and LF groups (8.3 vs. 4.7%; p  = 0.5). Although extubation to HFNC was associated with a trend toward longer postextubation PICU length of stay and was successfully used as rescue therapy for several infants extubated to LF, our results must be interpreted with caution given the limitations of our study.

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
自引率
14.30%
发文量
60
×
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