Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in children following extubation., Design: Using data from the FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC) trial, we explore heterogeneity at the individual and subgroup levels using a causal forest approach, alongside a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) approach for comparison., Settings: FIRST-ABC is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) including children in UK paediatric intensive care units, which compared HFNC with CPAP as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support., Patients: In the step-down FIRST-ABC, 600 children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. In this analysis, 118 patients were excluded because they did not consent to accessing their medical records, did not consent to follow-up questionnaire or did not receive respiratory support., Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome of this study is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gain. INB is calculated based on total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months. The findings suggest modest heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP at the subgroup level, while greater heterogeneity is detected at the individual level., Conclusions: The estimated overall INB of HFNC is smaller than the INB for patients with better baseline status suggesting that HFNC can be more cost-effective among less severely ill patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Extubation failure (EF) has been associated with worse outcomes in critically ill children. The relative efficacy of different modes of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) to prevent EF is unknown., Objective: To study the reported relative efficacy of different modes of NRS (high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC], continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], and bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP]) compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Complete through May 2022., Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials that enrolled critically ill children receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours and compared the efficacy of different modes of postextubation NRS., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects models were fit using a bayesian network meta-analysis framework. Between-group comparisons were estimated using odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Treatment rankings were assessed by rank probabilities and the surface under the cumulative rank curve (SUCRA)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was EF (reintubation within 48 to 72 hours). Secondary outcomes were treatment failure (TF, reintubation plus NRS escalation or crossover to another NRS mode), pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) mortality, PICU and hospital length of stay, abdominal distension, and nasal injury., Results: A total of 11 615 citations were screened, and 9 randomized clinical trials with a total of 1421 participants were included. Both CPAP and HFNC were found to be more effective than COT in reducing EF and TF (CPAP: OR for EF, 0.43; 95% CrI, 0.17-1.0 and OR for TF 0.27, 95% CrI 0.11-0.57 and HFNC: OR for EF, 0.64; 95% CrI, 0.24-1.0 and OR for TF, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.16- 0.65). CPAP had the highest likelihood of being the best intervention for both EF (SUCRA, 0.83) and TF (SUCRA, 0.91). Although not statistically significant, BiPAP was likely to be better than COT for preventing both EF and TF. Compared to COT, CPAP and BiPAP were reported as showing a modest increase (approximately 3%) in nasal injury and abdominal distension., Conclusions and Relevance: The studies included in this systematic review and network meta-analysis found that compared with COT, EF and TF rates were lower with modest increases in abdominal distension and nasal injury. Of the modes evaluated, CPAP was associated with the lowest rates of EF and TF.

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 following extubation of critically ill children is not known., Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), on time to liberation from respiratory support., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 22 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Six hundred children aged 0 to 15 years clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support within 72 hours of extubation were recruited between August 8, 2019, and May 18, 2020, with last follow-up completed on November 22, 2020., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to start either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 299) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 301)., 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 the child was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75. There were 6 secondary outcomes, including mortality at day 180 and reintubation within 48 hours., Results: Of the 600 children who were randomized, 553 children (HFNC, 281; CPAP, 272) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 3 months; 241 girls [44%]). HFNC failed to meet noninferiority, with a median time to liberation of 50.5 hours (95% CI, 43.0-67.9) vs 42.9 hours (95% CI, 30.5-48.2) for CPAP (adjusted HR, 0.83; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.70-∞). Similar results were seen across prespecified subgroups. Of the 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 showed no significant difference, including the rate of reintubation within 48 hours (13.3% for HFNC vs 11.5 % for CPAP). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for HFNC (5.6% vs 2.4% for CPAP; adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.1-8.8]). The most common adverse events were abdominal distension (HFNC: 8/281 [2.8%] vs CPAP: 7/272 [2.6%]) and nasal/facial trauma (HFNC: 14/281 [5.0%] vs CPAP: 15/272 [5.5%])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Background: The FIRST-ABC trial comprises of two pragmatic, multicentre, parallel groups, non-inferiority randomised clinical trials designed to evaluate the clinical non-inferiority of first-line use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in critically ill children who require non-invasive respiratory support (NRS)., Objectives: To describe the pre-specified statistical and health economic analysis for the FIRST-ABC trial before completion of patient recruitment and data collection., Methods: The statistical analysis plan was designed by the chief investigators and statisticians. We define the primary and secondary outcomes, summarise methods for data collection and safety monitoring, and present a detailed description of the planned statistical and health economic analysis., Results: The primary clinical outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support. The primary effect estimate will be the adjusted hazard ratio, reported with a 95% confidence interval. As a sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis will be repeated using time to start weaning of NRS. Subgroup analyses will be performed to test for interactions between the effect of allocated treatment group and pre-specified baseline covariates. The health economic analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and report the mean (95% confidence interval) incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness up to 6 months. All analyses will be performed separately for each of the two trials, and any results will not be combined., Conclusion: The FIRST-ABC trial will assess the non-inferiority of HFNC compared to CPAP in two parallel trials with shared infrastructure (step-up RCT and step-down RCT). We have developed a pre-specified statistical and health economics analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC study before trial completion to minimise analytical bias., Trial Registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN60048867 . Registered on 19 June 2019.

Introduction: Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children., Methods and Analysis: We will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations., Ethics and Dissemination: This master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN60048867., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care., Methods: In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT., Results: Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2)., Conclusions: Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415 . Registered on 23 November 2015.

Background: Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (HHFNC) is increasingly used on the paediatric wards and High Dependency Units (HDU) for different types of pathologies and different age groups. We aimed to describe current practice related to the use of HHFNC on the paediatric wards and HDUs, weaning practices and preferred outcome measures for future research.Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional online survey of UK paediatric consultants or their delegates working on the paediatric wards. Descriptive analysis of their geographical, and organizational characteristics, their specialties, and their level of experience was investigated. Reasons for HHFNC initiation, weaning criteria, patients' characteristics and their primary pathologies were also analysed.Results: Participation of 218 paediatricians from 81 hospitals (Median: 2.7, Range: 1-11) was registered. HHFNC was provided in most of the surveyed hospitals (93%, 75/81). A High Dependency Unit (HDU) was available in 47 hospitals (58%); less than a third of those have a dedicated paediatrician. Decisions around HHFNC were made solely by paediatricians in (75%) of the cases, mostly at hospitals with no HDU compared to those with dedicated HDUs (70.3% VS 36.6, 95%CI:22.6-50.4%, P < .001). HHFNC was reported by nearly two-thirds (68%) of the practitioners who used it on the wards to be as effective or superior to CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) with fewer complications. Failure rate while on HHFNC was identified as the most important outcome measure in any future research followed by the length of need for HHFNC support (37.1, and 28% respectively).Conclusion: This survey showed support for developing paediatric-specific national guidance on the use of HHFNC on the wards. Our list of defined research priorities may help guide further collaborative research efforts in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]