A randomized controlled trial to compare the success rates and efficacy of high flow nasal cannulae versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in post extubation period in neonates

Srinivas C. Awanti; Ramesh R. Pol; Arun B. Katti

doi:10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20230728

Authors

Srinivas C. Awanti Department of Pediatrics, S. Nijalingappa Medical College, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
Ramesh R. Pol Department of Pediatrics, S. Nijalingappa Medical College, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7440-5113
Arun B. Katti Department of Pediatrics, S. Nijalingappa Medical College, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20230728

Keywords:

Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula, nCPAP, Non-invasive ventilation, Neonatal intensive care unit

Abstract

Background: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is the mainstay for non-invasive respiratory support for all respiratory distress neonates. Recent advances in Heated humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) usage with enhanced humidity, and improved comfort factors have led to its widespread use, at times replacing nCPAP in many neonatal settings. The present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with nCPAP for non-invasive respiratory support in post-extubation period.

Methods: A hospital based randomized controlled trial was conducted in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of S. Nijalingappa Medical College and HSK Hospital, Bagalkot from January 2019 to June 2020. 140 post-extubated neonates were enrolled for the study after obtaining informed consent from parents, and those who were directly extubated to no support and with major congenital anomalies were excluded from the study. Randomization was done by computer generated random number allocation method.

Results: Of the140 babies, 60% were males and 40% were females. Out of 84 male neonates, 47 (67.1%) were on nCPAP and 37 (32.9%) on HHHFNC and out of 56 female neonates 23 (32.9%) were on nCPAP and 33 (47.1%) on HFNC. In this study, 4 babies on nCPAP required re-intubation within 72 hours. 5 babies on HHHFNC, 3 babies required re-intubation within 72 hours and 2 babies within 5 days. The incidence of nasal trauma, hospital stay and duration of NIV support were less in HHHFNC group as compared to nCPAP group.

Conclusions: HHHFNC therapy is as effective as nCPAP therapy for the facilitation of extubation in neonates.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Wilkinson D, Andersen C, O’Donnell CP, De Paoli AG, Manley BJ. High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD006405.

Dani C, Pratesi S, Migliori C, Bertini G. High flow nasal cannula therapy as respiratory support in the preterm infant. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44:629-34.

Kalyan CK, Edward Lewis L, Bhat YR, Purkayastha J, Kanaparthi SH. Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for the Facilitation of Extubation in Preterm Neonates with Respiratory Distress. Iranian J Neonatol. 2018:9(2).

Murki S, Singh J, Khant C, Kumar Dash S, Oleti TP, Joy P, et al. High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Primary Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neonatology. 2018;113(3):235-41.

Manley BJ. High-Flow Nasal Cannulae in Very Preterm infants after extubation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1425-33.

Yoder BA, Stoddard RA, Li M, King J, Dirnberger DR, Abbasi S. Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for respiratory support in neonates. Pediatrics. 2013;131(5):e1482-90.

Shoemaker MT, Pierce MR, Yoder BA, DiGeronimo RJ. High flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for neonatal respiratory disease: a retrospective study. J Perinatol. 2007;27(2):85-91.

Collins CL, Holberton JR, Barfield C, Davis PG. A randomized controlled trial to compare heated humidified high-flow nasal cannulae with nasal continuous positive airway pressure post-extubation in premature infants. J Pediatr. 2013;162(5):949-54.

Saslow JG, Aghai ZH, Nakhla TA, Hart JJ, Lawrysh R, Stahl GE, et al. Work of breathing using high-flow nasal cannula in preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2006;26(8):476-80.

Kubicka ZJ, Limauro J, Darnall RA. Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula therapy: yet another way to deliver continuous positive airway pressure. Pediatrics. 2008;121(1):82-8.

Lampland AL, Plumm B, Meyers PA, Worwa CT, Mammel MC. Observational study of humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. J Pediatr. 2009;154(2):177-82.

Spence KL, Murphy D, Kilian C, McGonigle R, Kilani RA. High-flow nasal cannula as a device to provide continuous positive airway pressure in infants. J Perinatol. 2007;27(12):772-5.

Lavizzari A, Veneroni C, Colnaghi M, et al. Respiratory mechanics during NCPAP and HHHFNC at equal distending pressures. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99(4):315-20.