RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Care variability for children with severe acute asthma has been well documented in high-income countries, yet data from low- and middle-income regions are lacking. We sought to characterize the magnitude of practice variability in the care of Latin American children to identify opportunities for standardization of care. METHODS: A cross-sectional study performed through a retrospective analysis of contemporaneously collected data of children with severe acute asthma admitted to a center contributing to the LARed Network registry between May 2017 and May 2019. Centers were grouped by geographic location: Atlantic (AT), South Pacific (SP), and North Central (NC). RESULTS: Among 434 children, most received care in hospitals in the AT group (54% [235/434]), followed by the NC (23% [101/434]) and SP (23% [98/434]) groups. The majority of children in the AT (92% [215/235]) and SP (91% [89/98]) groups received nebulized salbutamol/albuterol, while metered-dose inhalers were preferred in the NC group (72% [73/101]). There was a wide variation in the use of antibiotics: AT (57% [135/235]), SP (48% [47/98]), and NC (14% [14/101]). The same was true for ipratropium bromide: AT (67% [157/235]), SP (90% [88/98]), and NC (17% [17/101]), and aminophylline: AT (57% [135/235]), NC (5% [5/101]), and SP (0% [0/98]). High-flow nasal cannula was the preferred respiratory support modality in the AT (60% [141/235]) and NC (40% [40/101]) groups, while bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) use was more common in the SP group (80% [78/98]). CONCLUSION: We identified significant variability in care for severe acute asthma. Our findings will help to inform the design of future studies, quality improvement initiatives, and development of practice guidelines within Latin America.
Assuntos
Asma/terapia , Adolescente , Albuterol/uso terapêutico , Aminofilina/uso terapêutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapêutico , Cânula , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Ipratrópio/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Inaladores Dosimetrados , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
We conducted a randomized controlled pilot study in infants with critical bronchiolitis ( n = 63) comparing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC, n = 35) to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP, n = 28). The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for bilevel positive pressure ventilation or endotracheal intubation. Treatment failure occurred in 10 patients (35.7%) in the CPAP group and 13 patients (37.1%) in the HFNC group ( p = 0.88). Pediatric intensive care unit length of stay was similar between the CPAP and HFNC groups (5 [4-7] days and 5 [4-8] days, p = 0.46, respectively). In this pilot study, treatment with HFNC resulted in a rate of treatment failure similar to CPAP.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current literature describing high-flow nasal cannula use in children, the components and mechanisms of action of a high-flow nasal cannula system, the appropriate clinical applications, and its role in the pediatric emergency department. SOURCES: A computer-based search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar for literature on high-flow nasal cannula use in children was performed. DATA SUMMARY: High-flow nasal cannula, a non-invasive respiratory support modality, provides heated and fully humidified gas mixtures to patients via a nasal cannula interface. High-flow nasal cannula likely supports respiration though reduced inspiratory resistance, washout of the nasopharyngeal dead space, reduced metabolic work related to gas conditioning, improved airway conductance and mucociliary clearance, and provision of low levels of positive airway pressure. Most data describing high-flow nasal cannula use in children focuses on those with bronchiolitis, although high-flow nasal cannula has been used in children with other respiratory diseases. Introduction of high-flow nasal cannula into clinical practice, including in the emergency department, has been associated with decreased rates of endotracheal intubation. Limited prospective interventional data suggest that high-flow nasal cannula may be similarly efficacious as continuous positive airway pressure and more efficacious than standard oxygen therapy for some patients. Patient characteristics, such as improved tachycardia and tachypnea, have been associated with a lack of progression to endotracheal intubation. Reported adverse effects are rare. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula should be considered for pediatric emergency department patients with respiratory distress not requiring immediate endotracheal intubation; prospective, pediatric emergency department-specific trials are needed to better determine responsive patient populations, ideal high-flow nasal cannula settings, and comparative efficacy vs. other respiratory support modalities.