High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Children with Respiratory Distress

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine the clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in children presented with respiratory distress. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Infants and children aged between 1 month to 5 years who were admitted to our tertiary referral center for respiratory distress (July 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015) and met the inclusion criteria were recruited. INTERVENTIONS: Infants and children hospitalized with respiratory distress were randomized into two groups of interventions. All clinical data, for example, respiratory score, pulse rate, and respiratory rate were recorded. The results were subsequently analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 98 respiratory distress children were enrolled during the study period. Only 4 children (8.2%) failed in HFNC therapy, compared with 10 children (20.4%) in conventional oxygen therapy group (P = 0.09). After adjusted for body weight, underlying diseases, and respiratory distress score, there was an 85% reduction in the odds of treatment failure in HFNC therapy group (adjusted odds ratio 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.03–0.66, P = 0.01). Most children in HFNC therapy group had significant improvement in clinical respiratory score, heart rate, and respiratory rate at 240, 360, and 120 min compared with conventional oxygen therapy (P = 0.03, 0.04, and 0.03). CONCLUSION: HFNC therapy revealed a potential clinical advantage in management children hospitalized with respiratory distress compared with conventional respiratory therapy. The early use of HFNC in children with moderate-to-severe respiratory distress may prevent endotracheal tube intubation. TRIAL REGISTER: TCTR 20170222007.