Literature DB >> 24201859

Effort of breathing in children receiving high-flow nasal cannula.

Sarah Rubin1, Anoopindar Ghuman, Timothy Deakers, Robinder Khemani, Patrick Ross, Christopher J Newth.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: High-flow humidified nasal cannula is often used to provide noninvasive respiratory support in children. The effect of high-flow humidified nasal cannula on effort of breathing in children has not been objectively studied, and the mechanism by which respiratory support is provided remains unclear. This study uses an objective measure of effort of breathing (Pressure. Rate Product) to evaluate high-flow humidified nasal cannula in critically ill children.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Quaternary care free-standing academic children's hospital. PATIENTS: ICU patients younger than 18 years receiving high-flow humidified nasal cannula or whom the medical team planned to extubate to high-flow humidified nasal cannula within 72 hours of enrollment.
INTERVENTIONS: An esophageal pressure monitoring catheter was placed to measure pleural pressures via a Bicore CP-100 pulmonary mechanics monitor. Change in pleural pressure (ΔPes) and respiratory rate were measured on high-flow humidified nasal cannula at 2, 5, and 8 L/min. ΔPes and respiratory rate were multiplied to generate the Pressure.Rate Product, a well-established objective measure of effort of breathing. Baseline Pes, defined as pleural pressure at end exhalation during tidal breathing, reflected the positive pressure generated on each level of respiratory support.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five patients had measurements on high-flow humidified nasal cannula. Median age was 6.5 months (interquartile range, 1.3-15.5 mo). Median Pressure,Rate Product was lower on high-flow humidified nasal cannula 8 L/min (median, 329 cm H2O·min; interquartile range, 195-402) compared with high-flow humidified nasal cannula 5 L/min (median, 341; interquartile range, 232-475; p = 0.007) or high-flow humidified nasal cannula 2 L/min (median, 421; interquartile range, 233-621; p < 0.0001) and was lower on high-flow humidified nasal cannula 5 L/min compared with high-flow humidified nasal cannula 2 L/min (p = 0.01). Baseline Pes was higher on high-flow humidified nasal cannula 8 L/min than on high-flow humidified nasal cannula 2 L/min (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing flow rates of high-flow humidified nasal cannula decreased effort of breathing in children, with the most significant impact seen from high-flow humidified nasal cannula 2 to 8 L/min. There are likely multiple mechanisms for this clinical effect, including generation of positive pressure and washout of airway dead space.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24201859     DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med        ISSN: 1529-7535            Impact factor:   3.624


  22 in total

1.  Intensive Care Unit Utilization After Adoption of a Ward-Based High-Flow Nasal Cannula Protocol.

Authors:  Eric R Coon; Greg Stoddard; Patrick W Brady
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.960

2.  Comparison of Effort of Breathing for Infants on Nasal Modes of Respiratory Support.

Authors:  Asavari Kamerkar; Justin Hotz; Rica Morzov; Christopher J L Newth; Patrick A Ross; Robinder G Khemani
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 4.406

3.  Efficacy and safety analysis of high-flow nasal cannula in children with bronchiolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Juan Cao; Qiuyue Cai; Yu Xing; Lihua Zhong; Changsi Wen; Huimin Huang
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2022-04

4.  Predicting Failure of Non-Invasive Ventilation With RAM Cannula in Bronchiolitis.

Authors:  Mia Maamari; Gustavo Nino; James Bost; Yao Cheng; Anthony Sochet; Matthew Sharron
Journal:  J Intensive Care Med       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 3.510

5.  Trends in Bronchiolitis ICU Admissions and Ventilation Practices: 2010-2019.

Authors:  Jonathan H Pelletier; Alicia K Au; Dana Fuhrman; Robert S B Clark; Christopher Horvat
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 9.703

Review 6.  Invasive and noninvasive ventilation strategies for acute respiratory failure in children with coronavirus disease 2019.

Authors:  Jennifer A Blumenthal; Melody G Duvall
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 2.893

Review 7.  High-flow nasal cannula: recommendations for daily practice in pediatrics.

Authors:  Christophe Milési; Mathilde Boubal; Aurélien Jacquot; Julien Baleine; Sabine Durand; Marti Pons Odena; Gilles Cambonie
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 6.925

Review 8.  High flow nasal cannula in children: a literature review.

Authors:  Ingvild Bruun Mikalsen; Peter Davis; Knut Øymar
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Reply to: Contemporary treatment of children with critical and near-fatal asthma.

Authors:  Steven L Shein; Richard H Speicher; Alexandre T Rotta
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2016-09

10.  Recommendations for mechanical ventilation of critically ill children from the Paediatric Mechanical Ventilation Consensus Conference (PEMVECC).

Authors:  Martin C J Kneyber; Daniele de Luca; Edoardo Calderini; Pierre-Henri Jarreau; Etienne Javouhey; Jesus Lopez-Herce; Jürg Hammer; Duncan Macrae; Dick G Markhorst; Alberto Medina; Marti Pons-Odena; Fabrizio Racca; Gerhard Wolf; Paolo Biban; Joe Brierley; Peter C Rimensberger
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.