Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2024 Apr;21(4):612-619. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202309-807OC.
Over 20,000 children are hospitalized in the United States for asthma every year. Although initial treatment guidelines are well established, there is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal respiratory support devices for these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate institutional and temporal variability in the use of respiratory support modalities for pediatric critical asthma. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Virtual Pediatrics Systems database. Our study population included children older than 2 years old admitted to a VPS contributing pediatric intensive care unit from January 2012 to December 2021 with a primary diagnosis of asthma or status asthmaticus. We evaluated the percentage of encounters using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for all institutions, then divided institutions into quintiles based on the volume of patients. We created logistic regression models to determine the influence of institutional volume and year of admission on respiratory support modality use. We also conducted time-series analyses using Kendall's tau. Our population included 77,115 patient encounters from 163 separate institutions. Institutional use of respiratory modalities had significant variation in HFNC (28.3%, interquartile range [IQR], 11.0-49.0%; < 0.01), CPAP (1.4%; IQR, 0.3-4.3%; < 0.01), NIV (8.6%; IQR, 3.5-16.1%; < 0.01), and IMV (5.1%; IQR, 3.1-8.2%; < 0.01). Increased institutional patient volume was associated with significantly increased use of NIV (odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 1.29-1.36; < 0.01) and CPAP (OR, 1.20; 1.15-1.25; < 0.01), and significantly decreased use of HFNC (OR, 0.80; 0.79-0.81; < 0.01) and IMV (OR, 0.82; 0.79-0.86; < 0.01). Time was also associated with a significant increase in the use of HFNC (11.0-52.3%; < 0.01), CPAP (1.6-5.4%; < 0.01), and NIV (3.7-21.2%; < 0.01), whereas there was no significant change in IMV use (6.1-4.0%; = 0.11). Higher-volume centers are using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation more frequently for pediatric critical asthma and lower frequencies of HFNC and IMV. Treatment with HFNC, CPAP, and NIV for this population is increasing in the last decade.
美国每年有超过 20000 名儿童因哮喘住院。尽管初始治疗指南已经确立,但对于这些患者最佳呼吸支持设备的高质量证据仍然缺乏。本研究的目的是评估儿科危重症哮喘中呼吸支持方式的机构和时间变异性。我们使用来自虚拟儿科系统数据库的数据进行了回顾性队列研究。我们的研究人群包括年龄大于 2 岁,因哮喘或哮喘持续状态入住 VPS 参与儿科重症监护病房的患者。我们评估了所有机构使用高流量鼻导管(HFNC)、持续气道正压通气(CPAP)、无创双水平正压通气(NIV)和有创机械通气(IMV)的百分比,然后根据患者量将机构分为五组。我们创建了逻辑回归模型,以确定机构数量和入院年份对呼吸支持方式使用的影响。我们还使用肯德尔 tau 进行了时间序列分析。我们的人群包括来自 163 个独立机构的 77115 次患者就诊。HFNC(28.3%,四分位距 [IQR],11.0-49.0%;<0.01)、CPAP(1.4%,IQR,0.3-4.3%;<0.01)、NIV(8.6%,IQR,3.5-16.1%;<0.01)和 IMV(5.1%,IQR,3.1-8.2%;<0.01)的机构使用情况存在显著差异。机构患者数量的增加与 NIV(比值比 [OR],1.33;1.29-1.36;<0.01)和 CPAP(OR,1.20;1.15-1.25;<0.01)的使用显著增加相关,与 HFNC(OR,0.80;0.79-0.81;<0.01)和 IMV(OR,0.82;0.79-0.86;<0.01)的使用显著减少相关。时间也与 HFNC(11.0-52.3%;<0.01)、CPAP(1.6-5.4%;<0.01)和 NIV(3.7-21.2%;<0.01)的使用显著增加相关,而 IMV 的使用没有显著变化(6.1-4.0%;=0.11)。高容量中心更频繁地使用无创正压通气治疗儿科危重症哮喘,HFNC 和 IMV 的频率较低。在过去十年中,该人群接受 HFNC、CPAP 和 NIV 的治疗有所增加。