Comparative Study between Noninvasive Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Hot Humidified High-flow Nasal Cannulae as a Mode of Respiratory Support in Infants with Acute Bronchiolitis in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital. Sarkar, M., Sinha, R., Roychowdhoury, S., Mukhopadhyay, S., Ghosh, P., Dutta, K., & Ghosh, S. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 22(2):85–90, February, 2018.
Comparative Study between Noninvasive Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Hot Humidified High-flow Nasal Cannulae as a Mode of Respiratory Support in Infants with Acute Bronchiolitis in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital. [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Background:Early initiation of appropriate noninvasive respiratory support is utmost important intervention to avoid mechanical ventilation in severe bronchiolitis. Aim:This study aims to compare noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and hot humidified high-flow nasal cannulae (HHHFNC) as modes of respiratory support in infants with severe bronchiolitis. Methods:Prospective, randomized, open-label pilot study done in a tertiary-care hospital Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Participants: 31 infants (excluding neonates) clinically diagnosed with acute bronchiolitis having peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) \textless92% (with room air oxygen); Respiratory Distress Assessment Index (RDAI) ≥11. Intervention: nCPAP (n = 16) or HHHFNC (n = 15), initiated at enrollment. Primary outcome: Reduction of need of mechanical ventilation assessed by improvements in (i) SpO2% (ii) heart rate (HR); respiratory rate; (iii) partial pressure of carbon dioxide; (iv) partial pressure of oxygen; (v) COMFORT Score; (vi) RDAI from preintervention value. Secondary outcome: (i) total duration of noninvasive ventilation support; (ii) PICU length of stay; and (iii) incidence of nasal injury (NI). Results:Mean age was 3.41 ± 1.11 months (95% confidence interval 2.58-4.23). Compared to nCPAP, HHHFNC was better tolerated as indicated by better normalization of HR (P \textless 0.001); better COMFORT Score (P \textless 0.003) and lower incidence of NI (46.66% vs. 75%; P = 0.21). Improvements in other outcome measures were comparable for both groups. For both methods, no major patient complications occurred. Conclusion:HHHFNC is an emerging alternative to nCPAP in the management of infants with acute bronchiolitis.
@article{sarkar_comparative_2018,
	title = {Comparative {Study} between {Noninvasive} {Continuous} {Positive} {Airway} {Pressure} and {Hot} {Humidified} {High}-flow {Nasal} {Cannulae} as a {Mode} of {Respiratory} {Support} in {Infants} with {Acute} {Bronchiolitis} in {Pediatric} {Intensive} {Care} {Unit} of a {Tertiary} {Care} {Hospital}.},
	volume = {22},
	url = {http://www.ijccm.org/text.asp?2018/22/2/85/225873},
	doi = {10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_274_17},
	abstract = {Background:Early initiation of appropriate noninvasive respiratory support is utmost important intervention to avoid mechanical ventilation in severe bronchiolitis.

Aim:This study aims to compare noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and hot humidified high-flow nasal cannulae (HHHFNC) as modes of respiratory support in infants with severe bronchiolitis.

Methods:Prospective, randomized, open-label pilot study done in a tertiary-care hospital Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Participants: 31 infants (excluding neonates) clinically diagnosed with acute bronchiolitis having peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) {\textless}92\% (with room air oxygen); Respiratory Distress Assessment Index (RDAI) ≥11. Intervention: nCPAP (n = 16) or HHHFNC (n = 15), initiated at enrollment. Primary outcome: Reduction of need of mechanical ventilation assessed by improvements in (i) SpO2\% (ii) heart rate (HR); respiratory rate; (iii) partial pressure of carbon dioxide; (iv) partial pressure of oxygen; (v) COMFORT Score; (vi) RDAI from preintervention value. Secondary outcome: (i) total duration of noninvasive ventilation support; (ii) PICU length of stay; and (iii) incidence of nasal injury (NI).

Results:Mean age was 3.41 ± 1.11 months (95\% confidence interval 2.58-4.23). Compared to nCPAP, HHHFNC was better tolerated as indicated by better normalization of HR (P {\textless} 0.001); better COMFORT Score (P {\textless} 0.003) and lower incidence of NI (46.66\% vs. 75\%; P = 0.21). Improvements in other outcome measures were comparable for both groups. For both methods, no major patient complications occurred.

Conclusion:HHHFNC is an emerging alternative to nCPAP in the management of infants with acute bronchiolitis.},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine},
	author = {Sarkar, Mihir and Sinha, Rajasree and Roychowdhoury, Satyabrata and Mukhopadhyay, Sobhanman and Ghosh, Pramit and Dutta, Kalpana and Ghosh, Shibarjun},
	month = feb,
	year = {2018},
	pages = {85--90},
}

Downloads: 0