High Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy as an Alternative to Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Pooled Analysis Richard H. Speicher, MD1,2; Steven L. Shein, MD1,2; David H. Speicher, MD1,2; Alexandre T. Rotta, MD 1,2 (1)Pediatric Critical Care, UH Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, OH; (2)Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH INTRODUCTION RESULTS RESULTS • Heated, humidified high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy has • Of the five included trials, four compared nasal CPAP vs. HFNC increasingly gained acceptance as a treatment modality in neonatal intensive care units worldwide. • HFNC has been shown to be safe and convenient to use in the pediatric population, and compares favorably to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with respect to the occurrence of nasal trauma. • Recent prospective clinical trials in premature infants demonstrate non-inferiority of HFNC compared to CPAP for clinically relevant endpoints such as intubation. • A pooled analysis of these studies may show superiority of one modality, or suggest variables associated with treatment success, such as the use of particular HFNC devices. Trial Collins J Peds 2013 Yoder Pediatrics 2013 Manley NEJM 2013 Lavizzaru PAS 2013 Miller J Perinatol 2010 Subjects Endpoint Device Reintubation at 7 days 28 to 42 wks Reintubation at 72 hrs < 32 wks Reintubation at 7 days 29 to 36 wks Reintubation at 72 hrs 26 to 29 wks Reintubation at 72 hrs Vapotherm < 32 wks Vapotherm, F&P, Hudson F&P Vapotherm Vapotherm, F&P - Fisher & Paykel Healthcare [Irvine, CA] - Hudson RCI [Research Triangle Park, NC] - Vapotherm Inc. [Stevensville, MD]) • One trial compared two HFNC devices - Fisher & Paykel Healthcare HFNC - Vapotherm HFNC • A total of 998 patients were analyzed, with 510 randomized to the HFNC group and 488 randomized to the CPAP group. • Both the HFNC and CPAP groups had similar rates of meeting the primary failure endpoint (19.6% vs. 16.8%, risk ratio=1.167, 95% CI=0.895-1.512, p=0.252). • Of the 510 patients randomized to HFNC, 181 were treated with the • We hypothesized that HFNC therapy would not be inferior to nasal Vapotherm device, 17 with the Hudson RCI device and 312 with the CPAP and that type of device utilized would not affect outcome in Fisher & Paykel Healthcare device. premature infants. METHODS • Medline and Google Scholar database searches to identify contemporary prospective randomized controlled trials of HFNC therapy in premature infants. Outcome Nasal CPAP, n (%) HFNC, n (%) Failure Success 82 (16.8%) 406 (83.2%) 100 (19.6%) 410 (80.4%) Total 488 (100%) 510 (100%) Risk Ratio= 1.167, 95% CI= 0.895 – 1.512, p= 0.252 •Five clinical trials met inclusion criteria and had sufficient detail to •The outcome variable was the predetermined primary outcome (treatment failure, such as need for intubation) specifically set for each individual trial. •Data were analyzed with dedicated software (MedCalc Software Version 13.2, Ostend, Belgium). •A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. the primary failure endpoint was significantly lower for the Vapotherm system (14.4%) compared to other devices (22.5%, risk ratio=0.639, 95% CI=0.4245–0.9608, p=0.031). DISCLOSURE CONCLUSIONS • HFNC therapy and nasal CPAP appear to have similar efficacy in permit a pooled analysis: Miller, J Perinatol 2010; Collins, JPeds 2013; Manley, NEJM 2013; Yoder, Pediatrics 2013; Lavizzari, PAS 2013. • When data were analyzed based on device type, the rate of meeting Outcome Vapotherm, n (%) Others, n (%) Failure Success 26 (14.4%) 155 (85.6%) 74 (22.5%) 255 (77.5%) Total 181 (100%) 329(100%) preventing respiratory failure in premature infants. • Our data suggest that the device used to deliver HFNC may influence outcome and this warrants further prospective investigation. Risk Ratio= 0.6386, 95% CI= 0.4245 – 0.9608, p= 0.031 ATR is a scientific advisory board member for Vapotherm, Inc.
© Copyright 2024