Search

Central venous access devices (CVADs) are commonly used in malignancies. We conducted an online, anonymous cross‐sectional survey of practice regarding CVAD management in haematology centres among clinicians in Australia and New Zealand. We identified variation in clinical practice regarding CVAD selection, insertion, management and removal. These findings highlight research gaps in CVAD care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has numerous advantages against conventional oxygen therapy delivery systems. However, there is limited evidence supporting the use of HFNC in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) under procedural sedation. The aims of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of two different oxygen delivery devices, that is,HFNCand conventional nasal cannula on the oxygenation status of patients during procedural sedation for EUS. Material and Methods: Sixty adult patients undergoing EUS for various ailments were randomized to two groups group HFNC (n=30) and group nasal cannula [NC (n = 30)]. HFNC (AIRVO2, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, New Zealand) was used on patients in the group HFNC. Respiratory status of the patients was assessed using pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, procedural airway complications, and oxygen therapy adjustments. The endoscopist assessed the ease of performing EUS at the end of the procedure and patient satisfaction score (PSS) was assessed by using a Likert score in the post-anesthesia care unit. Results: SpO2 measurements in the HFNC group during the procedure were marginally better compared to the NC group but this failed to reach statistical significance. Also, no significant association was found between both groups while comparing desaturation events (P = 0.499), patient satisfaction score (PSS) and endendoscopist's satisfaction score (ESS) (P = 0.795). Both the groups were comparable in terms of airway manipulation, use of airway adjuncts, need to increase oxygen flow rate, endoscope removal, apneic episodes, hypotension, and bradycardia. No major complications were observed in either group. Conclusion: HFNC use in patients undergoing EUS is not superior when compared to conventional nasal cannula oxygen therapy. HFNC failed to show any significant impact on decreasing the risk of desaturation events and airway manipulation during the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To determine the prevalence of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in infants presenting to hospital in Australia and New Zealand with bronchiolitis over four bronchiolitis seasons. Secondary aims were to determine temporal trends in HFNC use, and associations between HFNC, hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission., Methods: A planned sub-study of a multi-centre international cluster randomised controlled trial investigating knowledge translation strategies for a bi-national bronchiolitis guideline. Demographics, management and outcomes data were collected retrospectively for infants presenting with bronchiolitis to 26 hospitals between 1 May 2014 and 30 November 2017. Prevalence data are presented as absolute frequencies (95% confidence interval (CI)) with differences between groups for continuous and categorical variables analysed using linear and logistic regression, respectively., Results: 11 715 infants were included with 3392 (29.0%, 95% CI (28.1-29.8%)) receiving oxygen therapy; of whom 1817 (53.6%, 95% CI (51.9-55.3%)) received HFNC. Use of oxygen therapy did not change over the four bronchiolitis seasons (P = 0.12), while the proportion receiving HFNC increased (2014, 336/2587 (43.2%); 2017, 609/3720 (57.8%); P ≤ 0.001). Infants who received HFNC therapy were not substantially different to infants who received oxygen therapy without HFNC. HFNC use was associated with increases in both hospital LOS (P < 0.001) and ICU admissions (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Use of HFNC therapy for infants with bronchiolitis increased over 4 years. Of those who received oxygen therapy, the majority received HFNC therapy without improvement in hospital LOS or ICU admissions. Strategies to guide appropriate HFNC use in infants with bronchiolitis are required., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Objective: To quantify aerosol delivery with or without a high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in place using pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and jet nebulizer (JN) with facemask in a simulated spontaneously breathing pediatric lung model., Methods: An upper airway model of a 9-month-old infant (Sophia Anatomical Infant Nose-Throat) with an absolute filter distal to the trachea was connected to a breathing simulator to simulate pediatric parameters (tidal volume = 100 mL, respiratory rate = 30 breaths/min, and I:E ratio = 1:1.4). Oxygen at 3 L/min was administered through an infant HFNC (Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand) attached to the nares of the model. Albuterol sulfate (2.5 mg/3 mL) was delivered with JN attached to an aerosol facemask and powered by air at 8 L/min. Ventolin Hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) (360 μg) was administered using pMDI connected to a valved holding chamber (VHC) with a facemask. Aerosol was administered to the model with and without HFNC in the nares (n = 3). Drug was eluted from the filter and quantified using spectrophotometry. Independent t tests were performed for data analysis (P < .05)., Results: Aerosol deposition was greater without HFNC (6.05% ± 1.53% and 39.54% ± 8.98% for JN and pMDI/VHC, respectively) than with HFNC using JN (2.91% ± 0.23%; P = .024) and pMDI/VHC (6.04% ± 0.28%; P = .003). Delivery efficiency of pMDI/VHC was greater than JN with or without nasal cannula in place (P = .0001 and .003, respectively)., Conclusion: Aerosol administered via facemask over HFNC was less efficient than removing HFNC during administration. When delivering medical aerosol by facemask, the benefit of increased aerosol delivery must be weighed against the changes in oxygen delivery and risk of lung derecruitment when nasal prongs are removed., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)