Cargando…

FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care

BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramnarayan, Padmanabhan, Lister, Paula, Dominguez, Troy, Habibi, Parviz, Edmonds, Naomi, Canter, Ruth R., Wulff, Jerome, Harrison, David A., Mouncey, Paul M., Peters, Mark J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29866165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2080-3
_version_ 1783329154331049984
author Ramnarayan, Padmanabhan
Lister, Paula
Dominguez, Troy
Habibi, Parviz
Edmonds, Naomi
Canter, Ruth R.
Wulff, Jerome
Harrison, David A.
Mouncey, Paul M.
Peters, Mark J.
author_facet Ramnarayan, Padmanabhan
Lister, Paula
Dominguez, Troy
Habibi, Parviz
Edmonds, Naomi
Canter, Ruth R.
Wulff, Jerome
Harrison, David A.
Mouncey, Paul M.
Peters, Mark J.
author_sort Ramnarayan, Padmanabhan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care. METHODS: In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT. RESULTS: Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415. Registered on 23 November 2015. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2080-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5987627
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59876272018-06-20 FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care Ramnarayan, Padmanabhan Lister, Paula Dominguez, Troy Habibi, Parviz Edmonds, Naomi Canter, Ruth R. Wulff, Jerome Harrison, David A. Mouncey, Paul M. Peters, Mark J. Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care. METHODS: In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT. RESULTS: Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415. Registered on 23 November 2015. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2080-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5987627/ /pubmed/29866165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2080-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Ramnarayan, Padmanabhan
Lister, Paula
Dominguez, Troy
Habibi, Parviz
Edmonds, Naomi
Canter, Ruth R.
Wulff, Jerome
Harrison, David A.
Mouncey, Paul M.
Peters, Mark J.
FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care
title FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care
title_full FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care
title_fullStr FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care
title_full_unstemmed FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care
title_short FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care
title_sort first-line support for assistance in breathing in children (first-abc): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29866165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2080-3
work_keys_str_mv AT ramnarayanpadmanabhan firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT listerpaula firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT domingueztroy firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT habibiparviz firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT edmondsnaomi firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT canterruthr firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT wulffjerome firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT harrisondavida firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT mounceypaulm firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT petersmarkj firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare
AT firstlinesupportforassistanceinbreathinginchildrenfirstabcamulticentrepilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialofhighflownasalcannulatherapyversuscontinuouspositiveairwaypressureinpaediatriccriticalcare