Abstract
BACKGROUND
Bronchiolitis is a common lower respiratory tract illness, usually of viral aetiology, affecting infants younger than 24 months of age and is the most common cause of hospitalisation of infants. It causes airway inflammation, mucus production and mucous plugging, resulting in airway obstruction. Effective pharmacotherapy is lacking and bronchiolitis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Conventional treatment consists of supportive therapy in the form of fluids, supplemental oxygen, and respiratory support. Traditionally, oxygen delivery is as a dry gas at 100% concentration via low-flow nasal prongs. However, the use of heated, humidified, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy enables delivery of higher inspired gas flows of an air/oxygen blend, at 2 to 3 L/kg per minute up to 60 L/min in children. It can provide some level of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to improve ventilation in a minimally invasive manner. This may reduce the need for invasive respiratory support, thus potentially lowering costs, with clinical advantages and fewer adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of HFNC therapy compared with conventional respiratory support in the treatment of infants with bronchiolitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science (from June 2013 to December 2022). In addition, we consulted ongoing trial registers and experts in the field to identify ongoing studies, checked reference lists of relevant articles, and searched for conference abstracts. Date restrictions were imposed such that we only searched for studies published after the original version of this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that assessed the effects of HFNC (delivering oxygen or oxygen/room air blend at flow rates greater than 4 L/minute) compared to conventional treatment in infants (< 24 months) with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiolitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently used a standard template to assess trials for inclusion and extract data on study characteristics, risk of bias elements, and outcomes. We contacted trial authors to request missing data. Outcome measures included the need for invasive respiratory support and time until discharge, clinical severity measures, oxygen saturation, duration of oxygen therapy, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update we included 15 new RCTs (2794 participants), bringing the total number of RCTs to 16 (2813 participants). Of the 16 studies, 11 compared high-flow to low-flow, and five compared high-flow to CPAP. These studies included infants less than 24 months of age as stated in our selection criteria. There were no significant differences in sex. We found that when comparing high-flow to low-flow oxygen therapy for infants with bronchiolitis there may be a reduction in the total length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -0.65 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.06; P < 0.00001, I2 = 89%; 7 studies, 1951 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may also be a reduction in the duration of oxygen therapy (MD -0.59 days, 95% CI -1 to -0.18; P < 0.00001, I2 = 86%; 7 studies, 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). We also found that there was probably an improvement in respiratory rate at one and 24 hours, and heart rate at one, four to six, and 24 hours in those receiving high-flow oxygen therapy when compared to pre-intervention baselines. There was also probably a reduced risk of treatment escalation in those receiving high-flow when compared to low-flow oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79; P = 0.001, I2 = 43%; 8 studies, 2215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no difference in the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.74; P = 0.76, I2 = 26%; 4 studies, 1789 participants; low-certainty evidence) between the two groups. The lack of comparable outcomes in studies comparing high-flow and CPAP, as well as the small numbers of participants, limited our ability to perform meta-analysis on this group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-flow nasal cannula therapy may have some benefits over low-flow oxygen for infants with bronchiolitis in terms of a greater improvement in respiratory and heart rates, as well as a modest reduction in the length of hospital stay and duration of oxygen therapy, with a reduced incidence of treatment escalation. There does not appear to be a difference in the number of adverse events. Further studies comparing high-flow nasal cannula therapy and CPAP are required to demonstrate the efficacy of one modality over the other. A standardised clinical definition of bronchiolitis, as well as the use of a validated clinical severity score, would allow for greater and more accurate comparison between studies.
Collapse