Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:20:44.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2019

Nigel Fleeman ,
Yenal Dundar Open the ORCID record for Yenal Dundar [Opens in a new window] ,
Prakesh S Shah  and
Ben NJ Shaw
Nigel Fleeman*
Affiliation:
Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Yenal Dundar
Affiliation:
Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Prakesh S Shah
Affiliation:
Departments of Paediatrics and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada
Ben NJ Shaw
Affiliation:
Neonatal Unit, Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
*
Author for correspondence: Nigel Fleeman, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as a mode of respiratory support. We updated a systematic review and meta-analyses examining the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with standard treatments for preterm infants. The primary outcome was the need for reintubation for preterm infants following mechanical ventilation (post-extubation analysis) or need for intubation for preterm infants not previously intubated (analysis of primary respiratory support)

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HHHFNC versus standard treatments. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

The post-extubation analysis included ten RCTs (n = 1,201), and the analysis of primary respiratory support included ten RCTs (n = 1,676). There were no statistically significant differences for outcomes measuring efficacy, including the primary outcome. There were statistically significant differences favoring HHHFNC versus nasal cannula positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for air leak (post-extubation, risk ratio [RR] 0.29, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 0.76, I2 = 0) and nasal trauma (post-extubation: 0.35, 95 percent CI 0.27 to 0.46, I2 = 5 percent; primary respiratory support: RR 0.52, 95 percent CI 0.37 to 0.74; I2 = 27 percent). Studies, particularly those of primary respiratory support, included very few preterm infants with gestational age (GA) <28 weeks.

Conclusions

HHHFNC may offer an efficacious and safe alternative to NCPAP for some infants but evidence is lacking for preterm infants with GA ≤28 weeks.

Keywords

PretermHeated-humidified high-flow nasal cannulaSystematic reviewMeta-analysis
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , 2019 , pp. 298 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thank you to all our co-authors of the original review. Thanks also to Dr. Rabeea'h Aslam who assisted with the selection of studies for the updated review and Miss Marty Richardson who provided statistical advice regarding the updated meta-analyses.

Funding source: This project was originally funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 14/151/03). See the Health Technology Assessment programme website for further project information: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the Department of Health Financial disclosure: The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. Study registration: The original review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=15978

References

1.Kramer, MS, Demissie, K, Yang, H, et al. (2000) The contribution of mild and moderate preterm birth to infant mortality. Fetal and Infant Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. JAMA 284, 843–849.Google Scholar
2.Office for National Statistics (2000) Gestation-specific infant mortality, 2013 2015 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/pregnancyandethnicfactorsinfluencingbirthsandinfantmortality/2015-10-14#downloadable-tables (accessed December 12, 2017).Google Scholar
3.de Winter, JP, de Vries, MA, Zimmermann, LJ (2010) Clinical practice: noninvasive respiratory support in newborns. Eur J Pediatr 169, 777–782.Google Scholar
4.Kugelman, A (2014) Optimal management of neonatal lung diseases using current technologies. Pediatr Pulmonol 49, S26–S28.Google Scholar
5.Mahmoud, RA, Roehr, CC, Schmalisch, G (2011) Current methods of non-invasive ventilatory support for neonates. Paediatr Respir Rev 12, 196–205.Google Scholar
6.Jane Pillow, J (2012) Which continuous positive airway pressure system is best for the preterm infant with respiratory distress syndrome? Clin Perinatol 39, 483–496.Google Scholar
7.Garg, S, Sinha, S (2000) Non-invasive ventilation in premature infants: based on evidence or habit. J Clin Neonatol 2, 155–159.Google Scholar
8.Shetty, S, Sundaresan, A, Hunt, K, Desai, P, Greenough, A (2016) Changes in use of heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen (HHFNC). Eur Respir J 48, PA1296.Google Scholar
9.Fleeman, N, Mahon, J, Bates, V, et al. (2016) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: Systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 20, 1–70.Google Scholar
10.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) (2008) CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare: Systematic reviews. 3rd ed. York: CRD, University of York; 2008.Google Scholar
11.Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414), 557–560.Google Scholar
12.Atkins, D, Best, D, Briss, PA, et al. (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328(7454), 1490.Google Scholar
13.Chen, J, Gao, WW, Xu, F, et al. (2015) [Comparison of clinical efficacy of heated humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in very low birth weight infants]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 17, 847–851.Google Scholar
14.Collaborative Group for the Multicenter Study on Heated Humidified High-flow Nasal Cannula Ventilation (2014) [Efficacy and safety of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula for prevention of extubation failure in neonates]. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi 52, 271–276.Google Scholar
15.Collins, CL, Barfield, C, Horne, RS, Davis, PG (2014) A comparison of nasal trauma in preterm infants extubated to either heated humidified high-flow nasal cannulae or nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Eur J Pediatr 173, 181–186.Google Scholar
16.Collins, CL, Holberton, JR, Barfield, C, Davis, PG (2013) A randomized controlled trial to compare heated humidified high-flow nasal cannulae with nasal continuous positive airway pressure postextubation in premature infants. J Pediatr 162, 949–54.e1.Google Scholar
17.Elkhwad, M, Dako, J, Jennifer, G, Harriet, F, Anand, K (2017) Randomized control trial: heated humidity high flow nasal cannula in comparison with NCPAP in the management of RDS in extreme low birth infants in immediate post extubation period. J Neonat Pediatr Med 3(1), 121.Google Scholar
18.Glackin, SJ, O'Sullivan, A, George, S, Semberova, J, Miletin, J (2016) High flow nasal cannula versus NCPAP, duration to full oral feeds in preterm infants: A randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 23, 23.Google Scholar
19.Iranpour, R, Sadeghnia, A, Hesaraki, M (2011) High-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the management of respiratory distress syndrome. J Isfahan Med Sch 29(143), 761–772.Google Scholar
20.Iranpour, R, Sadeghnia, A, Hesaraki, M (2012) 393 High-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the management of respiratory distress syndrome. Arch Dis Child 97(Suppl 2), A115–A116.Google Scholar
21.Kadivar, MM, Mosayebi, ZM, Razi, NM, Nariman, SM, Sangsari, RM (2016) High flow nasal cannulae versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome managed with insure method: a randomized clinical trial. Iran J Med Sci 41, 494–500.Google Scholar
22.Kang, WQ, Xu, BL, Liu, DP, et al. (2016) [Efficacy of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula in preterm infants aged less than 32 weeks after ventilator weaning]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 18, 488–491.Google Scholar
23.Klingenberg, C, Pettersen, M, Hansen, EA, et al. (2014) Patient comfort during treatment with heated humidified high flow nasal cannulae versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure: A randomised cross-over trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 99, F134–F137.Google Scholar
24.Kugelman, A, Riskin, A, Said, W, et al. (2014) A randomized pilot study comparing heated humidified high-flow nasal cannulae with NIPPV for RDS. Pediatr Pulmonol 50, 576–583.Google Scholar
25.Lavizzari, A, Colnaghi, M, Ciuffini, F, et al. (2016) Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome of prematurity: A randomized clinical noninferiority trial. JAMA Pediatr doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1243.Google Scholar
26.Ma, L, Liu, CQ, Gu, XH, Liu, XJ (2014) The efficacy and safety of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula for prevention of extubation failure in neonates. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27, 208–209.Google Scholar
27.Manley, BJ, Owen, LS, Doyle, LW, et al. (2013) High-flow nasal cannulae vs. nasal cpap for post-extubation respiratory support of very preterm infants: A multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial. J Paediatr Child Health 49, 41.Google Scholar
28.Manley, BJ, Owen, LS, Doyle, LW, et al. (2013) High-flow nasal cannulae in very preterm infants after extubation. N Engl J Med 369, 1425–1433.Google Scholar
29.Mohammed, E, Anand, K, Joleen, D, Jennifer, G (2014) Randomized control trial: heated humidity high flow nasal cannula in comparison with NCPAP in the management of RDS in extreme low birth infants in immediate post extubation period. J Neonat Pediatr Med 3, 121.Google Scholar
30.Mostafa-Gharehbaghi, M, Mojabi, H (2014) Comparing the effectiveness of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in prevention of post extubation assisted ventilation. Zahedan J Res Med Sci 17, e984.Google Scholar
31.Nair, G, Karna, P (2005) Comparison of the effects of vapotherm and nasal CPAP in respiratory distress in preterm infants. Pediatr Acad Soc 57, 2054.Google Scholar
32.Roberts, CT, Owen, LS, Manley, BJ, Donath, SM, Davis, PG (2015) A multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, comparing high flow therapy with nasal continuous positive airway pressure as primary support for preterm infants with respiratory distress (the HIPSTER trial): Study protocol. BMJ Open 5, e008483.Google Scholar
33.Roberts, CT, Owen, LS, Manley, BJ, et al. (2016) Nasal high-flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 375, 1142–1151.Google Scholar
34.Roberts, CT, Owen, LS, Manley, BJ, et al. (2016) High-flow nasal cannulae as primary respiratory support for preterm infants-An international, multi-centre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. J Paediatr Child Health 52, 120.Google Scholar
35.Shin, J, Park, K, Lee, EH, Choi, BM (2017) Humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as an initial respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress: A randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial. J Korean Med Sci 32, 650–655.Google Scholar
36.Soonsawad, S, Tongsawang, N, Nuntnarumit, P (2016) Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula for weaning from continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: A randomized controlled trial. Neonatology 110, 204–209.Google Scholar
37.Yoder, BA, Stoddard, RA, Li, M, et al. (2013) Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for respiratory support in neonates. Pediatrics 131, e1482–e1490.Google Scholar
38.Murki, S, Singh, J, Khant, C, et al. (2018) 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 2018:235–241.Google Scholar
39.Wilkinson, D, Andersen, C, O'Donnell, CP, De Paoli, AG, Manley, BJ (2016) High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2, CD006405.Google Scholar
40.Kotecha, SJ, Adappa, R, Gupta, N, et al. (2015) Safety and efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in preterm infants: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 136, 542–553.Google Scholar
41.Muthu, V (2003) The number needed to treat: problems describing non-significant results. Evid Based Ment Health 6, 72.Google Scholar
42.Conte, F, Orfeo, L, Gizzi, C, Massenzi, L, Fasola, S (2018) Rapid systematic review shows that using a high-flow nasal cannula is inferior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure as first-line support in preterm neonates. Acta Paediatr 107, 1684–1696.Google Scholar
43.Roberts, CT, Hodgson, KA (2017) Nasal high flow treatment in preterm infants. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol 3, 15.Google Scholar
44.Higgins, JP, Green, S, eds (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (accessed January 23, 2019); 2011.Google Scholar
45.Hough, JL, Shearman, AD, Jardine, LA, Davies, MW (2012) Humidified high flow nasal cannulae: Current practice in Australasian nurseries, a survey. J Paediatr Child Health 48, 106–113.Google Scholar
46.Ojha, S, Gridley, E, Dorling, J (2013) Use of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula oxygen in neonates: A UK wide survey. Acta Paediatr 102, 249–253.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fleeman et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S7 and Figure S5

Download Fleeman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 221.3 KB