A review of the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in hospitalized children at a regional hospital in the Cape Town Metro, South Africa

Master Thesis

2018

Permanent link to this Item
Authors
Journal Title
Link to Journal
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Publisher
License
Series
Abstract
Background: High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is a non-invasive alternative to nasal continuous positive pressure oxygen (CPAP) therapy for infants and children requiring respiratory support. There is a paucity of literature to support its use in children, with no published data from sub-Saharan Africa. Objective: To describe the outcomes and adverse events of HFNC in the first year of its use in a level two (L2) general paediatric ward, compared with outcomes of a historical cohort when this intervention was unavailable. Methods: This retrospective descriptive study included children aged <13 years who received HFNC in the first 12 months after its introduction (HFNC-availability group; n=66). Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and outcomes (death, treatment failure, length of HFNC, and HFNC-related adverse events) were assessed. A comparative description of children that required transfer to level 3 (L3) for respiratory support (more than available standard low-flow oxygen) in the 12-month period prior to HFNC availability (pre-HFNC group; n=54) was performed and outcomes were compared using standard descriptive and comparative statistics. Results: The median age of the cohort was 5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 1.9– 14.6). Sixteen children (13.3%) were malnourished, 10 (8%) were HIV infected, and 30 (25%) were ex-premature infants. The most common diagnoses were pneumonia, bronchiolitis, and asthma. Asthma, anaemia, and cardiac abnormalities were the most prevalent underlying co-morbidities. Two children died in each group. All 54 children in the pre-HFNC group were transferred to L3; 38 (70.4%) needed CPAP or invasive ventilation. In the HFNC-availability period, 85 children were assessed as needing more than standard low-flow oxygen therapy: 19 were immediately transferred to L3 where 17 (89.4%) received CPAP or invasive ventilation; 66 received HFNC at L2, 16 (24.2%) of these children required transfer to L3 for CPAP or invasive ventilation. The median duration of HFNC was 46.3 h (IQR 19.5–93.5) overall, and was 12 h (IQR 4-28) and 58.5 h (IQR 39.5–106) for those who failed or were successfully managed on HFNC, respectively. No HFNCrelated serious adverse events were recorded at L2. Conclusion: HFNC is a safe, effective, feasible option for non-invasive ventilation of children with respiratory illnesses in a resource-limited L2 setting. A greater proportion of children admitted with lower respiratory tract infections required support in the HFNC-availability group, but the intervention reduced the bed- pressure on L3. Improved identification of HFNC failures and better adherence to the protocol is needed at L2.
Description

Reference:

Collections