Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
Full metadata record
|dc.identifier.citation||The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011; 5(5):CD006405-1-CD006405-3||en|
|dc.description.abstract||<h4>Background</h4>High flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) are small, thin, tapered cannulae used to deliver oxygen or blended oxygen and air at flow rates of > 1 L/min. HFNC can be used to provide high concentrations of oxygen and may deliver positive end-expiratory pressure.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the safety and efficacy of HFNC with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants.<h4>Search strategy</h4>The strategy included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and abstracts from conference proceedings.<h4>Selection criteria</h4>Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing HFNC with other non-invasive forms of respiratory support in preterm infants immediately after birth or following extubation.<h4>Data collection and analysis</h4>Data were extracted and analysed by the authors. Relative risk, risk difference and number needed to treat were calculated.<h4>Main results</h4>Four studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The studies differed in the interventions compared (nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), humidified HFNC, non-humidified HFNC), the flow rates provided and the indications for respiratory support. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were not possible. When used as primary respiratory support after birth, one trial found similar rates of treatment failure in infants treated with HFNC and nasal CPAP. Following extubation, one trial found that infants treated with HFNC had a significantly higher rate of reintubation than those treated with nasal CPAP. Another trial found similar rates of reintubation for humidified and non-humidified HFNC, and the fourth trial found no difference between two different models of equipment used to deliver humidified HFNC.<h4>Authors' conclusions</h4>There is insufficient evidence to establish the safety or effectiveness of HFNC as a form of respiratory support in preterm infants. When used following extubation, HFNC may be associated with a higher rate of reintubation than nasal CPAP. Further adequately powered randomised controlled trials should be undertaken in preterm infants comparing HFNC with nasal CPAP and with other means of respiratory support; or of support following extubation. These trials should measure clinically important outcomes.||en|
|dc.description.statementofresponsibility||Dominic Wilkinson, Chad Andersen, Colm PF O’Donnell, Antonio G De Paoli||en|
|dc.publisher||Update Software Ltd||en|
|dc.rights||Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration||en|
|dc.subject||Humans; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; Apnea; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Ventilator Weaning; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Catheters||en|
|dc.title||High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants||en|
|pubs.library.collection||Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications||en|
|dc.identifier.orcid||Andersen, C. [0000-0002-1364-4986]||en|
|Appears in Collections:||Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.