Respiratory Care Services, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Respir Care. 2021 Aug;66(8):1240-1246. doi: 10.4187/respcare.08740. Epub 2021 May 11.
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been used in the treatment of pediatric asthma, although high-quality data comparing HFNC to aerosol mask nebulizer are lacking. We hypothesized that HFNC would perform similarly to the aerosol mask for meaningful clinical outcomes in children with critical asthma.
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of children with critical asthma (age 2-17 y) with a modified pulmonary index score (MPIS) ≥ 8 admitted to our pediatric ICU as part of a quality improvement project. Patients were managed with our MPIS-based, respiratory therapist-driven protocol. Subjects were divided into 2 cohorts by initial respiratory support: HFNC or aerosol mask. Data included demographics, initial respiratory support, and MPIS over time. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcome was difference in MPIS over time.
We included 171 subjects, with 104 in the HFNC group and 67 in the aerosol mask group. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was lower in the HFNC group (5 [IQR 4-9] vs 7 [IQR 5-10] y, = .006)], while other demographic characteristics were similar. Initial MPIS was similar between HFNC and aerosol mask groups (11 [IQR 9-12] vs 10 [IQR 9-12], = .15). There were no significant differences for hospital LOS (2.9 [IQR 2.1-3.9] vs 3.0 [IQR 2.3-4.4] d, = .47), pediatric ICU LOS (1.9 [IQR 1.4-2.8] vs 1.8 [IQR 1.5-3.0] d, = .92), or time to MPIS < 6 (1.0 [IQR 0.6-1.6] vs 1.3 [IQR 0.8-1.9) d, = .09) between the HFNC and aerosol mask groups, respectively. Median time on continuous albuterol was shorter in the HFNC group compared to the aerosol mask group (1.0 [IQR 0.7-1.8] vs 1.5 [IQR 0.9-2.3] d, = .048). Of note, 16 (24%) subjects in the aerosol mask group were eventually treated with HFNC. Use of a helium-oxygen mixture and noninvasive ventilation was similar between groups.
HFNC performed similarly to aerosol mask in pediatric patients with critical asthma.
高流量鼻导管(HFNC)已用于治疗小儿哮喘,但缺乏将 HFNC 与雾化面罩雾化器进行比较的高质量数据。我们假设 HFNC 在治疗严重哮喘的儿童方面的有意义的临床结局与雾化面罩相似。
我们回顾性分析了作为一项质量改进项目的一部分,在我们的儿科重症监护病房(PICU)因改良肺指数评分(MPIS)≥8 而入院的重症哮喘(年龄 2-17 岁)儿童的病历。患者根据我们的基于 MPIS 的呼吸治疗师驱动的方案进行治疗。根据初始呼吸支持将患者分为 2 组:HFNC 或雾化面罩。数据包括人口统计学资料、初始呼吸支持和随时间变化的 MPIS。主要结局是住院时间(LOS)。次要结局是随时间变化的 MPIS 差异。
我们纳入了 171 例患者,HFNC 组 104 例,雾化面罩组 67 例。HFNC 组的中位(四分位距 [IQR])年龄较低(5 [IQR 4-9] vs 7 [IQR 5-10]岁, =.006),而其他人口统计学特征相似。HFNC 组和雾化面罩组的初始 MPIS 相似(11 [IQR 9-12] vs 10 [IQR 9-12], =.15)。HFNC 组和雾化面罩组的 LOS 差异无统计学意义(2.9 [IQR 2.1-3.9] vs 3.0 [IQR 2.3-4.4] d, =.47)、PICU LOS 差异无统计学意义(1.9 [IQR 1.4-2.8] vs 1.8 [IQR 1.5-3.0] d, =.92)或 MPIS<6 的时间差异无统计学意义(1.0 [IQR 0.6-1.6] vs 1.3 [IQR 0.8-1.9] d, =.09)。与雾化面罩组相比,HFNC 组持续使用沙丁胺醇的中位时间更短(1.0 [IQR 0.7-1.8] vs 1.5 [IQR 0.9-2.3] d, =.048)。值得注意的是,雾化面罩组有 16 例(24%)患者最终接受了 HFNC 治疗。两组间氦氧混合气体和无创通气的使用情况相似。
HFNC 在治疗严重哮喘的儿科患者中的表现与雾化面罩相似。