Padmanabhan Ramnarayan1,2, Alvin Richards-Belle3, Laura Drikite3, Michelle Saull3, Izabella Orzechowska3, Robert Darnell3, Zia Sadique4, Julie Lester5, Kevin P Morris6,7, Lyvonne N Tume8, Peter J Davis9, Mark J Peters10,11, Richard G Feltbower12, Richard Grieve4, Karen Thomas3, Paul R Mouncey3, David A Harrison3, Kathryn M Rowan3. 1. Section of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine, and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England. 2. Children's Acute Transport Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, England. 3. Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, England. 4. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England. 5. parent representative, Sussex, England. 6. Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England. 7. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. 8. School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Salford, England. 9. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, England. 10. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, England. 11. University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, England. 12. Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Abstract
Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.
Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.
Authors: Andrea Wolfler; Edoardo Calderini; Elisa Iannella; Giorgio Conti; Paolo Biban; Anna Dolcini; Nicola Pirozzi; Fabrizio Racca; Andrea Pettenazzo; Ida Salvo Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: A Schibler; T M T Pham; K R Dunster; K Foster; A Barlow; K Gibbons; J L Hough Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Gavin D Perkins; Chen Ji; Bronwen A Connolly; Keith Couper; Ranjit Lall; J Kenneth Baillie; Judy M Bradley; Paul Dark; Chirag Dave; Anthony De Soyza; Anna V Dennis; Anne Devrell; Sara Fairbairn; Hakim Ghani; Ellen A Gorman; Christopher A Green; Nicholas Hart; Siew Wan Hee; Zoe Kimbley; Shyam Madathil; Nicola McGowan; Benjamin Messer; Jay Naisbitt; Chloe Norman; Dhruv Parekh; Emma M Parkin; Jaimin Patel; Scott E Regan; Clare Ross; Anthony J Rostron; Mohammad Saim; Anita K Simonds; Emma Skilton; Nigel Stallard; Michael Steiner; Rama Vancheeswaran; Joyce Yeung; Daniel F McAuley Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Padmanabhan Ramnarayan; Alvin Richards-Belle; Laura Drikite; Michelle Saull; Izabella Orzechowska; Robert Darnell; Zia Sadique; Julie Lester; Kevin P Morris; Lyvonne N Tume; Peter J Davis; Mark J Peters; Richard G Feltbower; Richard Grieve; Karen Thomas; Paul R Mouncey; David A Harrison; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Jeremy M Loberger; Caitlin M Campbell; José Colleti; Santiago Borasino; Samer Abu-Sultaneh; Robinder G Khemani Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-09-02