Comparison of the heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula with nasal continuous positive airway pressure as primary respiratory support for preterm neonates: A prospective observational study

Tisha Ann Skariah, Laveena Dias, Leslie Edward Lewis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in the management of respiratory distress in preterm neonates. However, it is not known whether it takes precedence over the gold standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in this age group as a primary mode of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). There is limited evidence addressing this issue in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to focus on the effect of HHHFNC on preterm neonates with respiratory distress, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of respiratory support. Methods: A prospective observational study conducted in tertiary level III NICU. The preterm neonates 28-36 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome (onset of distress within ≤4 hours of life with FiO2 ≥0.25 with compatible chest radiograph) were managed with either HHHFNC or nCPAP The need for invasive ventilation within 72 hours of initiation of non-invasive respiratory support was studied. FiO2 and Downe's scores were recorded every 4th hour for the first 48 hours. Results: In total, 84 neonates were enrolled in this study. Treatment failure for HHHFNC group was 34.4%, whereas it was 32.2% (P=0.34) for NCPAP group which indicated no significant differences. In the late preterm strata, NCPAP group obtained longer duration for NIV (Median: 64 vs 43 hours, respectively; P<0.001); however, there were no differences between the study groups regarding the use of supplemental oxygen. The estimation of the survival time was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier curve (P<0.001). In addition, the two groups were compared through Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test. Moreover, the results revealed differences between the two groups in terms of the hazards ratio for time to success regarding such items as the intervention group, gestational age, birth weight, surfactant therapy, and Downe's score (1.17; CI: 95% [0.7, 1.8]). Conclusion: Early HHHFNC obtained similar results, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of NIV for a preterm population with respiratory distress, and it may not be superior to NCPAP.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)51-57
Number of pages7
JournalIranian Journal of Neonatology
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2019

Fingerprint

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
Observational Studies
Newborn Infant
Prospective Studies
Noninvasive Ventilation
Treatment Failure
Birth Weight
Surface-Active Agents
Gestational Age
Ventilation
Cannula
Thorax
Age Groups
Oxygen
Survival
Population

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

@article{337fa62317d44ea78aeccf0b7778667e,
title = "Comparison of the heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula with nasal continuous positive airway pressure as primary respiratory support for preterm neonates: A prospective observational study",
abstract = "Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in the management of respiratory distress in preterm neonates. However, it is not known whether it takes precedence over the gold standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in this age group as a primary mode of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). There is limited evidence addressing this issue in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to focus on the effect of HHHFNC on preterm neonates with respiratory distress, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of respiratory support. Methods: A prospective observational study conducted in tertiary level III NICU. The preterm neonates 28-36 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome (onset of distress within ≤4 hours of life with FiO2 ≥0.25 with compatible chest radiograph) were managed with either HHHFNC or nCPAP The need for invasive ventilation within 72 hours of initiation of non-invasive respiratory support was studied. FiO2 and Downe's scores were recorded every 4th hour for the first 48 hours. Results: In total, 84 neonates were enrolled in this study. Treatment failure for HHHFNC group was 34.4{\%}, whereas it was 32.2{\%} (P=0.34) for NCPAP group which indicated no significant differences. In the late preterm strata, NCPAP group obtained longer duration for NIV (Median: 64 vs 43 hours, respectively; P<0.001); however, there were no differences between the study groups regarding the use of supplemental oxygen. The estimation of the survival time was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier curve (P<0.001). In addition, the two groups were compared through Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test. Moreover, the results revealed differences between the two groups in terms of the hazards ratio for time to success regarding such items as the intervention group, gestational age, birth weight, surfactant therapy, and Downe's score (1.17; CI: 95{\%} [0.7, 1.8]). Conclusion: Early HHHFNC obtained similar results, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of NIV for a preterm population with respiratory distress, and it may not be superior to NCPAP.",
author = "Skariah, {Tisha Ann} and Laveena Dias and Lewis, {Leslie Edward}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.22038/ijn.2019.34058.1495",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "51--57",
journal = "Iranian Journal of Neonatology",
issn = "2251-7510",
publisher = "Mashhad University of Medical Sciences",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula with nasal continuous positive airway pressure as primary respiratory support for preterm neonates

T2 - A prospective observational study

AU - Skariah, Tisha Ann

AU - Dias, Laveena

AU - Lewis, Leslie Edward

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in the management of respiratory distress in preterm neonates. However, it is not known whether it takes precedence over the gold standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in this age group as a primary mode of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). There is limited evidence addressing this issue in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to focus on the effect of HHHFNC on preterm neonates with respiratory distress, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of respiratory support. Methods: A prospective observational study conducted in tertiary level III NICU. The preterm neonates 28-36 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome (onset of distress within ≤4 hours of life with FiO2 ≥0.25 with compatible chest radiograph) were managed with either HHHFNC or nCPAP The need for invasive ventilation within 72 hours of initiation of non-invasive respiratory support was studied. FiO2 and Downe's scores were recorded every 4th hour for the first 48 hours. Results: In total, 84 neonates were enrolled in this study. Treatment failure for HHHFNC group was 34.4%, whereas it was 32.2% (P=0.34) for NCPAP group which indicated no significant differences. In the late preterm strata, NCPAP group obtained longer duration for NIV (Median: 64 vs 43 hours, respectively; P<0.001); however, there were no differences between the study groups regarding the use of supplemental oxygen. The estimation of the survival time was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier curve (P<0.001). In addition, the two groups were compared through Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test. Moreover, the results revealed differences between the two groups in terms of the hazards ratio for time to success regarding such items as the intervention group, gestational age, birth weight, surfactant therapy, and Downe's score (1.17; CI: 95% [0.7, 1.8]). Conclusion: Early HHHFNC obtained similar results, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of NIV for a preterm population with respiratory distress, and it may not be superior to NCPAP.

AB - Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in the management of respiratory distress in preterm neonates. However, it is not known whether it takes precedence over the gold standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in this age group as a primary mode of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). There is limited evidence addressing this issue in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to focus on the effect of HHHFNC on preterm neonates with respiratory distress, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of respiratory support. Methods: A prospective observational study conducted in tertiary level III NICU. The preterm neonates 28-36 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome (onset of distress within ≤4 hours of life with FiO2 ≥0.25 with compatible chest radiograph) were managed with either HHHFNC or nCPAP The need for invasive ventilation within 72 hours of initiation of non-invasive respiratory support was studied. FiO2 and Downe's scores were recorded every 4th hour for the first 48 hours. Results: In total, 84 neonates were enrolled in this study. Treatment failure for HHHFNC group was 34.4%, whereas it was 32.2% (P=0.34) for NCPAP group which indicated no significant differences. In the late preterm strata, NCPAP group obtained longer duration for NIV (Median: 64 vs 43 hours, respectively; P<0.001); however, there were no differences between the study groups regarding the use of supplemental oxygen. The estimation of the survival time was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier curve (P<0.001). In addition, the two groups were compared through Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test. Moreover, the results revealed differences between the two groups in terms of the hazards ratio for time to success regarding such items as the intervention group, gestational age, birth weight, surfactant therapy, and Downe's score (1.17; CI: 95% [0.7, 1.8]). Conclusion: Early HHHFNC obtained similar results, compared to NCPAP as a primary mode of NIV for a preterm population with respiratory distress, and it may not be superior to NCPAP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072384807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072384807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.22038/ijn.2019.34058.1495

DO - 10.22038/ijn.2019.34058.1495

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85072384807

VL - 10

SP - 51

EP - 57

JO - Iranian Journal of Neonatology

JF - Iranian Journal of Neonatology

SN - 2251-7510

IS - 3

ER -