The role of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in children with high risk for extubation failure is not established. The objective of our study was to compare the re-intubation rate within 48 h of extubation in high-risk children while receiving HFNC or NIV.
Methods:
This open-label, parallel, noninferiority randomized trial was conducted on high-risk cases in a 12-bed quaternary-level pediatric ICU. All patients aged 1 month to 18 years receiving invasive mechanical ventilation through an endotracheal tube for >48 h were screened for eligibility. Criteria for high-risk patients for extubation, spontaneous breathing trial, extubation readiness, and re-intubation were defined a priori. Subjects were randomized immediately prior to extubation to receive NIV or HFNC. FIO2, NIV settings, and flow setting for HFNC were selected according to a predefined algorithm. All subjects were monitored for hemodynamic instability and increased work of breathing, and the target SpO2 was 92%.
Results:
Intention-to-treat analysis was done with 142 subjects in each group. At baseline, both groups were comparable for severity of disease and organ dysfunction. Re-intubation was required in 15 (10.5%) cases in the NIV and 17 (11.9%) of the HFNC group, with no absolute difference (P = .74). The dosage of dexmedetomidine was significantly lower in the HFNC as compared with the NIV group [(0.85 ± 0.22 versus 1.02 ± 0.13 µg/kg/h; 95% CI 0.12–0.21, P < .001)]. Median (interquartile range) postextubation PICU stay was significantly shorter in HFNC subjects [3 (2–4.75) vs 4 (3–5)] days (P = .02).
Conclusions:
HFNC was noninferior to NIV as respiratory support in high-risk children after extubation.
Abu-SultanehS, IyerNP, FernandezA, et al.Executive summary: International clinical practice guidelines for pediatric ventilator liberation, a PALISI) Network document. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2023; 207(1):17–28; doi: 10.1164/rccm.202204-0795SO
2.
PolettoE, CavagneroF, PettenazzoM, et al.Ventilation weaning and extubation readiness in children in pediatric intensive care unit: A review. Front Pediatr, 2022; 10:1044681; doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.867739
3.
KurachekSC, NewthCJ, QuasneyMW, et al.Extubation failure in pediatric intensive care: A multiple-center study of risk factors and outcomes. Crit Care Med, 2003; 31(11):2657–2664; doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000094228.90557.85
4.
RamnarayanP, Richards-BelleA, DrikiteL, et al.; for the FIRST-ABC Step-Up RCT Investigators and the Paediatric Critical Care Society Study Group. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure therapy on liberation from respiratory support in acutely III children admitted to pediatric critical care units a randomized clinical trial. Jama, 2022; 328(2):162–172; doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.9615
5.
MaggioreSM, IdoneFA, VaschettoR, et al.Nasal high-flow versus venture mask oxygen therapy after extubation. Effects on oxygenation, comfort, and clinical outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2014; 190(3):282–288; doi: 10.1164/rccm.201402-0364OC
6.
BonoraJP, FrydmanJ, RettaA, et al.Post-extubation non-invasive ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit: a multicenter study. Arch Argent Pediatr, 2018; 116(5):333–339; doi: 10.5546/aap.2018.eng.333
7.
SachdevA, PuniaS, GuptaD, et al.Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation immediately after extubation in children- A randomized study. J Pediatr Crit Care, 2019; 6(6):15–21; doi: 10.21304/2019.0606.00539
8.
AkyıldızB, ÖztürkS, Ülgen-TekerekN, et al.Comparison between high-flow nasal oxygen cannula and conventional oxygen therapy after extubation in pediatric intensive care unit. Turk J Pediatr, 2018; 60(2):126–133; doi: 10.24953/turkjped.2018.02.002
9.
FiorettoJR, RibeiroCF, CarpiMF, et al.Comparison between noninvasive mechanical ventilation and standard oxygen therapy in children up to 3 Years old with respiratory failure after extubation: A pilot prospective randomized clinical study. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2015; 16(2):124–130; doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000309
10.
WijakprasertP, ChomchoeyJ. High-Flow Nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy in post-extubation pediatric patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai, 2018; 101(10):1331–1335.
11.
IyerNP, RottaAT, EssouriS, et al.Association of extubation failure rates with high-flow nasal cannula, continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure vs conventional oxygen therapy in infants and young children: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr, 2023; 177(8):774–781; doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.1478
12.
HernándezG, VaqueroC, ColinasL, et al.Effect of post-extubation high-flow nasal cannula vs noninvasive ventilation on reintubation and post-extubation respiratory failure in high-risk patients: A randomized clinical trial. Jama, 2016; 316(15):1565–1574; doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14194
13.
StéphanF, BarrucandB, PetitP, et al.; BiPOP Study Group. High-flow nasal oxygen vs noninvasive positive airway pressure in hypoxemic patients after cardiothoracic surgery: A randomized clinical trial. BiPOP study group. Jama, 2015; 313(23):2331–2339; doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.5213
14.
JaberS, LescotT, FutierE, et al.; NIVAS Study Group. Effect of non-invasive ventilation on tracheal reintubation among patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure following abdominal surgery: A randomized clinical trial. Jama, 2016; 315(13):1345–1353; doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.2706
15.
HernandezG, ParedesI, MoranF, et al.Effect of post extubation noninvasive ventilation with active humidification vs high-flow nasal cannula on reintubation in patients at very high risk for extubation failure: a randomized trial. Intensive Care Med, 2022; 48(12):1751–1759; doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06919-3
16.
RamnarayanP, Richards-BelleA, DrikiteL, et al. for the FIRST-ABC Step-Down RCT Investigators and the Paediatric Critical Care Society Study Group. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure following extubation on liberation from respiratory support in critically ill children-A randomized clinical trial. Jama, 2022; 327(16):1555–1565; doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.3367
17.
LiXQ, ZhaoWL, LiDY, et al.Clinical study on early extubation and sequential non-invasive respiratory support for children with acute respiratory failure receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Article in Chinese. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 2022; 53(2):321–326; doi: 10.12182/20220360206
18.
ThiagarajanRR, BrattonSL, MartinLD, et al.Predictors of successful extubation in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 1999; 160(5 Pt 1):1562–1566; doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.160.5.9810036
19.
Costa deGA, DelgadoAF, FerraroA, et al.Application of the Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) score and determination of mortality risk factors in a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit. Clinics (Sao Paulo), 2010; 65(11):1087–1092; doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322010001100005
20.
TaiD, DickP, ToT, et al.Development of pediatric comorbidity prediction model. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2006; 160(3):293–299; doi: 10.1001/archpedi.160.3.293
ForondaFK, TrosterEJ, FariasJA, et al.The impact of daily evaluation and spontaneous breathing test on the duration of pediatric mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med, 2011; 39(11):2526–2533; doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182257520
23.
Abu-SultanehS, HoleAJ, ToriAJ, et al.An interprofessional quality improvement initiative to standardize pediatric extubation readiness assessment. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2017; 18(10):e463–e471; doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001285
24.
NewthCJ, VenkataramanS, WillsonDF, et al.; Eunice Shriver Kennedy National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network. Weaning and extubation readiness in pediatric patients. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2009; 10(1):1–11; doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e318193724d
25.
Da SilvaPSL, FonsecaMCM, IglesiasSBO, et al.Nebulized 0.5, 2.5- and 5-ml l-epinephrine for post-extubation stridor in children: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Intensive Care Med, 2012; 38(2):286–293; doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2408-9
26.
SachdevA, RaufA. High-flow nasal cannula in children: A concise review and update. In: (TodiS, DixitSB, ZirpeK, MehtaY, Eds.), Critical Care Update. 1st edition. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P): New Delhi, India; 2019.
27.
Muñoz-BonetJI, Flor-MaciánEM, BrinesJ, et al.Predictive factors for the outcome of noninvasive ventilation in pediatric acute respiratory failure. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2010; 11(6):675–680; doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181d8e303
28.
RamnarayanP, ListerP, DominguezT, et al.FIRST line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): protocol for a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of non-invasive respiratory support in critically ill children. BMJ Open, 2017; 7(6):e016181; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016181
29.
Flores-GonzálezJC, Matamala-MorilloMA, Rodríguez-CampoyP, et al.; Bronchiolitis of Cadiz Study group (BronCaS). Epinephrine improves the efficacy of nebulized hypertonic saline in moderate bronchiolitis: A randomised clinical trial. PLoS One, 2015; 10(11):e0142847; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142847
30.
IstaE, Van DijkM, TibboelD, et al.Assessment of sedation levels in pediatric intensive care patients can be improved by using the COMFORT “behaviour” scale. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2005; 6(1):58–63; doi: 10.1097/01.PCC.0000149318.40279.1A
31.
RichterRP, AltenJA, KingRW, et al.Positive Airway pressure versus high-flow nasal cannula for prevention of extubation failure in infants after congenital heart surgery. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2019; 20(2):149–157; doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001783
32.
SachdevA, VohraR, GuptaN, et al.Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis. J Pediatr Crit Care, 2020; 7(4):168–173; doi: 10.4103/JPCC.JPCC_50_20
33.
PerkinsGD, MistryD, GatesS, et al.; Breathe Collaborators. Effect of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation vs invasive weaning on time to liberation from mechanical ventilation among patients with respiratory failure: The Breathe Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama, 2018; 320(18):1881–1888; doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13763
34.
ParkerMM, NuthallG, BrownC, et al.; Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network. Relationship between adverse tracheal intubation associated events and PICU outcomes. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2017; 18(4):310–318; doi: 10.1097/pcc.0000000000001074
35.
GullaKM, KabraSK, LodhaR. Feasibility of pediatric non-Invasive respiratory support in low- and middle-income countries. Indian Pediatr, 2021; 58(11):1077–1084; doi: 10.1007/s13312-021-2377-1
36.
LiuY, WangQ, HuJ, et al.Characteristics and risk factors of children requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation vs. non-prolonged mechanical ventilation in the PICU: A prospective single-center study. Front Pediatr, 2022; 10:830075; doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.830075
37.
LeeJH, RehderKJ, WillifordL, et al.Use of high flow nasal cannula in critically ill infants, children, and adults: a critical review of the literature. Intensive Care Med, 2013; 39(2):247–257; doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2743-5
38.
RamnarayanP, SchiblerA. Glass half empty or half full? The story of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in critically ill children. Intensive Care Med, 2017; 43(2):246–249; doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4663-2
39.
MehtaS, HillNS. Noninvasive ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2001; 163(2):540–577; doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.163.2.9906116
40.
ZhengYR, LinWH, LinSH, et al.Bi-level positive airway pressure versus nasal CPAP for the prevention of extubation failure in infants after cardiac surgery. Respir Care, 2022; 67(4):448–454; doi: 10.4187/respcare.09408
ManleyBJ, ArnoldaGRB, WrightIMR, et al.; HUNTER Trial Investigators. Nasal high-flow therapy for newborn infants in special care nurseries. N Engl J Med, 2019; 380(21):2031–2040; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812077
43.
TestaG, IodiceF, RicciZ, et al.Comparative evaluation of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in paediatric cardiac surgical patients: a randomized controlled trial. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg, 2014; 19(3):456–461; doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu171
44.
Mayordomo-ColungaJ, MedinaA, ReyC, et al.Non-invasive ventilation after extubation in paediatric patients: a preliminary study. BMC Pediatr, 2010; 10(1):29; doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-10-29
ManleyBJ, OwenLS, DoyleLW, et al.High-flow nasal cannulae in very preterm infants after extubation. N Engl J Med, 2013; 369(15):1425–1433; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300071
47.
MilésiC, EssouriS, PouyauR, et al.; Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et d’Urgences Pédiatriques (GFRUP). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) for the initial respiratory management of acute viral bronchiolitis in young infants: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRAMONTANE study). Intensive Care Med, 2017; 43(2):209–216; doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4617-8
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
