Comparison of Continuous positive airway pressure versus High flow nasal cannula for Oral feeding Preterm infants (CHOmP): randomized pilot study

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Sandra L. Leibel ◽  
Marina Castro ◽  
Tammy McBride ◽  
Kelly Hassall ◽  
Karla Sarmiento ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Oral Feeding ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula

scholarly journals High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Critical Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Pilot

2020 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. 248-255
Author(s):  
Regina Grigolli Cesar ◽  
Bibiane Ramos Pinheiro Bispo ◽  
Priscilla Helena Costa Alves Felix ◽  
Maria Carolina Caparica Modolo ◽  
Andreia Aparecida Freitas Souza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractWe conducted a randomized controlled pilot study in infants with critical bronchiolitis (n = 63) comparing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC, n = 35) to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP, n = 28). The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for bilevel positive pressure ventilation or endotracheal intubation. Treatment failure occurred in 10 patients (35.7%) in the CPAP group and 13 patients (37.1%) in the HFNC group (p = 0.88). Pediatric intensive care unit length of stay was similar between the CPAP and HFNC groups (5 [4–7] days and 5 [4–8] days, p = 0.46, respectively). In this pilot study, treatment with HFNC resulted in a rate of treatment failure similar to CPAP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document