High flow nasal cannula in infants: Experience in a critical patient unit
PDF (Español (España))

Keywords

High Flow Nasal Cannula
Infants
Oxygen Therapy
Acute Respiratory Failure
Critical Care
Pneumonology
Artificial Respiration
Oxygen Inhalation Therapy

How to Cite

1.
Wegner A. A, Cespedes F. P, Godoy M. ML, Erices B. P, Urrutia C. L, Venthur U. C, Labbé C. M, Riquelme M. H, Sanchez J. C, Vera V. W, Wood V. D, Contreras C. JC, Urrutia S. E. High flow nasal cannula in infants: Experience in a critical patient unit. Andes pediatr [Internet]. 2015 Jun. 6 [cited 2025 Sep. 12];86(3):173-81. Available from: https://andespediatrica.cl/index.php/rchped/article/view/3223

Abstract

Introduction: The high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a method of respiratory support that is increasingly being used in paediatrics due to its results and safety.

Objective: To determine the efficacy of HFNC, as well as to evaluate the factors related to its failure and complications associated with its use in infants.

Patients and Method: An analysis was performed on the demographic, clinical, blood gas, and radiological data, as well as the complications of patients connected to a HFNC in a critical care unit between June 2012 and September 2014. A comparison was made between the patients who failed and those who responded to HFNC. A failure was considered as the need for further respiratory support during the first 48 hours of connection. The Kolmogorov Smirnov, Mann-Whitney U, chi squared and the Exact Fisher test were used, as well as correlations and a binary logistic regression model for P ≤ .05.

Results: The study included 109 patients, with a median age and weight: 1 month (0.2-20 months) and 3.7 kg (2-10 kg); 95 percentile: 3.7 months and 5.7 kg, respectively. The most frequent diagnosis and radiological pattern was bronchiolitis (53.2%) and interstitial infiltration (56%). Around 70.6% responded. There was a significant difference between failure and response in the diagnosis (P = .013), radiography (P = 018), connection context (P < .0001), pCO2 (median 40.7 mmHg [15.4–67 mmHg] versus 47.3 mmHg [28.6-71.3 mmHg], P = .004) and hours on HFNC (median 60.75 hrs [5-621.5 hrs] versus 10.5 hrs [1-29 hrs], P < .0001). The OR of the PCO2 ≥ 55 mmHg for failure was 2.97 (95% CI; 1.08-8.17; P = .035). No patient died and no complications were recorded.

Conclusion: The percentage success observed was similar to that published. In this sample, the failure of HFNC was only associated with an initial pCO2 ≥ 55 mmHg. On there being no complications reported as regards it use, it is considered safe, although a randomised, controlled, multicentre study is required to compare and contrast these results.

PDF (Español (España))

Los contenidos publicados en esta revista están protegidos bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0). Esto significa que cualquier persona es libre de compartir,  usar y construir a partir de este artículo, incluso con fines comerciales, siempre que se otorgue el crédito apropiado al autor original, se proporcione un enlace a la licencia, se indique el nombre y edición de la Revista.

Esta licencia no impone restricciones adicionales, lo que garantiza la libre circulación y reutilización del conocimiento con respeto y transparencia hacia los derechos de los autores.  (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).