Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates with respiratory distress

Kalyan Chakravarthy Konda, Leslie Edward Lewis, Ramesh Y. Bhat, Jayashree Purkayastha, Shravan Kanaparthi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as an alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) therapy in the management of preterm neonates with respiratory distress due to ease of administration and patient comfort. However, limited evidence is available addressing its risks and benefits. To study the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC in comparison to nCPAP for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates (born at 27-34 weeks of gestation) with respiratory distress. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted, where 64 neonates were assigned either to nCPAP (n=34) or HHHFNC (n=30) groups post-extubation. The primary outcome was treatment failure (defined by pre-specified criteria) requiring a higher modality of respiratory support within 72 hours after extubation. Results: Treatment failure was seen in 36.7% of neonates assigned to the HHHFNC group compared to 14.7% in the nCPAP group (P=0.043). The incidence and severity of nasal trauma were higher in the nCPAP group compared to the HHHFNC group (nCPAP: 58.6% vs. HHHFNC: 15.7%; P=0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of other outcomes such as days on primary non-invasive ventilation (NIV), days of total NIV, duration of hospitalization, days to reach full enteral feeding, weight gain at discharge, incidence and severity of nasal trauma, incidence of pneumothorax, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, and death. Conclusion: Though a gentler modality with less incidence of nasal trauma, HHHFNC does not appear to be as effective as nCPAP in the management of preterms with respiratory distress.

Original languageEnglish
JournalIranian Journal of Neonatology
Volume9
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-03-2018

Fingerprint

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
Nose
Noninvasive Ventilation
Incidence
Treatment Failure
Wounds and Injuries
Retinopathy of Prematurity
Necrotizing Enterocolitis
Enteral Nutrition
Pneumothorax
Cannula
Weight Gain
Observational Studies
Sepsis
Hospitalization
Prospective Studies
Hemorrhage
Safety
Pregnancy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

@article{9693bbae8a4144d1a4f81434eb26582e,
title = "Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates with respiratory distress",
abstract = "Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as an alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) therapy in the management of preterm neonates with respiratory distress due to ease of administration and patient comfort. However, limited evidence is available addressing its risks and benefits. To study the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC in comparison to nCPAP for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates (born at 27-34 weeks of gestation) with respiratory distress. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted, where 64 neonates were assigned either to nCPAP (n=34) or HHHFNC (n=30) groups post-extubation. The primary outcome was treatment failure (defined by pre-specified criteria) requiring a higher modality of respiratory support within 72 hours after extubation. Results: Treatment failure was seen in 36.7{\%} of neonates assigned to the HHHFNC group compared to 14.7{\%} in the nCPAP group (P=0.043). The incidence and severity of nasal trauma were higher in the nCPAP group compared to the HHHFNC group (nCPAP: 58.6{\%} vs. HHHFNC: 15.7{\%}; P=0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of other outcomes such as days on primary non-invasive ventilation (NIV), days of total NIV, duration of hospitalization, days to reach full enteral feeding, weight gain at discharge, incidence and severity of nasal trauma, incidence of pneumothorax, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, and death. Conclusion: Though a gentler modality with less incidence of nasal trauma, HHHFNC does not appear to be as effective as nCPAP in the management of preterms with respiratory distress.",
author = "Konda, {Kalyan Chakravarthy} and Lewis, {Leslie Edward} and Bhat, {Ramesh Y.} and Jayashree Purkayastha and Shravan Kanaparthi",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.22038/ijn.2017.24517.1314",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "Iranian Journal of Neonatology",
issn = "2251-7510",
publisher = "Mashhad University of Medical Sciences",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates with respiratory distress

AU - Konda, Kalyan Chakravarthy

AU - Lewis, Leslie Edward

AU - Bhat, Ramesh Y.

AU - Purkayastha, Jayashree

AU - Kanaparthi, Shravan

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as an alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) therapy in the management of preterm neonates with respiratory distress due to ease of administration and patient comfort. However, limited evidence is available addressing its risks and benefits. To study the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC in comparison to nCPAP for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates (born at 27-34 weeks of gestation) with respiratory distress. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted, where 64 neonates were assigned either to nCPAP (n=34) or HHHFNC (n=30) groups post-extubation. The primary outcome was treatment failure (defined by pre-specified criteria) requiring a higher modality of respiratory support within 72 hours after extubation. Results: Treatment failure was seen in 36.7% of neonates assigned to the HHHFNC group compared to 14.7% in the nCPAP group (P=0.043). The incidence and severity of nasal trauma were higher in the nCPAP group compared to the HHHFNC group (nCPAP: 58.6% vs. HHHFNC: 15.7%; P=0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of other outcomes such as days on primary non-invasive ventilation (NIV), days of total NIV, duration of hospitalization, days to reach full enteral feeding, weight gain at discharge, incidence and severity of nasal trauma, incidence of pneumothorax, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, and death. Conclusion: Though a gentler modality with less incidence of nasal trauma, HHHFNC does not appear to be as effective as nCPAP in the management of preterms with respiratory distress.

AB - Background: Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as an alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) therapy in the management of preterm neonates with respiratory distress due to ease of administration and patient comfort. However, limited evidence is available addressing its risks and benefits. To study the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC in comparison to nCPAP for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates (born at 27-34 weeks of gestation) with respiratory distress. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted, where 64 neonates were assigned either to nCPAP (n=34) or HHHFNC (n=30) groups post-extubation. The primary outcome was treatment failure (defined by pre-specified criteria) requiring a higher modality of respiratory support within 72 hours after extubation. Results: Treatment failure was seen in 36.7% of neonates assigned to the HHHFNC group compared to 14.7% in the nCPAP group (P=0.043). The incidence and severity of nasal trauma were higher in the nCPAP group compared to the HHHFNC group (nCPAP: 58.6% vs. HHHFNC: 15.7%; P=0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of other outcomes such as days on primary non-invasive ventilation (NIV), days of total NIV, duration of hospitalization, days to reach full enteral feeding, weight gain at discharge, incidence and severity of nasal trauma, incidence of pneumothorax, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, and death. Conclusion: Though a gentler modality with less incidence of nasal trauma, HHHFNC does not appear to be as effective as nCPAP in the management of preterms with respiratory distress.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047806040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047806040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.22038/ijn.2017.24517.1314

DO - 10.22038/ijn.2017.24517.1314

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85047806040

VL - 9

JO - Iranian Journal of Neonatology

JF - Iranian Journal of Neonatology

SN - 2251-7510

IS - 2

ER -