Download This Paper
Preprints with The Lancet is a collaboration between The Lancet Group of journals and SSRN to facilitate the open sharing of preprints for early engagement, community comment, and collaboration. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early-stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision-making or presented without highlighting these facts. For more information, please see the FAQs.
Nasal High Flow in Children with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. A Paediatric Acute Respiratory Intervention Study (Paris)
52 Pages Posted: 23 Jun 2019
More...Abstract
Background: High-flow oxygen-therapy is increasingly used in children with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF), despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy outside intensive care units.
Methods: An open labelled RCT feasibility design was used in emergency departments and general wards of two tertiary children's hospitals. Over a period of 1-year, children aged 0-16 years with AHRF were randomised (1:1) to either high-flow or standard-oxygen. Children on the standard-oxygen could receive rescue high-flow in the general wards if their conditions met treatment failure criteria. The primary efficiency-endpoints were feasibility, recruitment rates and safety followed by the efficacy-endpoints measuring the proportion escalation of care. We measured the duration of hospital stay, duration of oxygen therapy and rates of ICU admission.
Findings: Of 563 randomised, 283 received high-flow and 280 standard-oxygen with no adverse events. The proportion of children receiving escalation of care was 11.7% (32/283 children) on the high-flow and 18.1% (50/280 infants) on standard-oxygen (risk difference -6.4 percentage points; 95% CI -12.4%, -0.5%; p=0.04). In children with obstructive airway disease 9.7% on high-flow and 17.4% on standard-oxygen required escalation (risk difference -7.7% percentage points; 95% CI -14.3%, -1.1%; p=0.03), whereas in children with non-obstructive disease no difference was observed. No difference in length of hospital stay was observed. 40% of children who failed standard-oxygen responded to rescue high-flow.
Interpretation: High-flow outside ICU appears to be safe in children with AHRF and the required proportion of escalation was lower compared to standard-oxygen. The trial design can be applied in a future large RCT.
Trial Registration: The study protocol was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. (ACTRN12615001305516).
Funding Statement: The study was supported by a grant provided by Thrasher Research Fund and a project grant provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
The high-flow equipment and consumables for both trial sites were donated by Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, which had no involvement in the design and conduct of the trial, the analysis of the data, or in the preparation of the manuscript.
Declaration of Interests: DF and AS report financial support for travel and accommodation provided by Fisher&Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand
Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by Children’s Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/QRCH/159) and the authors used a consent to continue process.
Keywords: Paediatrics, Oxygen saturation, Respiratory Distress, Reactive Airways Disease, Acute respiratory failure
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation