Single centre observational study evaluating the impact of introducing High Flow Nasal Cannula outside of Paediatric Critical Care Unit

Abstract

AimTo evaluate the impact of High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) introduction outside of Paediatric Critical Care Units (PCCU), on PCCU admissions and intubation rates. Secondarily, to identify escalation predictors.MethodsRetrospective observational study with matched PCCU admissions and intubation rates, 2‐years before (Group 1) and 2‐years after (Group 2) HFNC introduction outside of PCCU.Within Group 2, we compared those admitted to PCCU (escalation) and those who did not (non‐escalation). Observations, change in observations and time to starting HFNC were analysed.ResultsPre‐ and post‐introduction comparison: Of 980 admissions in Group 1, 55 were admitted to PCCU, whereas of 1209 admission in Group 2, there were 85 admissions, P = 0.188. Group 1 had 25 intubations compared to 23 in Group 2, P = 0.309. Over twice as many children had some form of respiratory support in Group 2.Post‐introduction: 104 children commenced HFNC, 72% for bronchiolitis. Median age was 4 months in the non‐escalation group and 6.5 months in the escalation group, P = 0.663. Thirty‐eight children escalated to PCCU: 33 required CPAP/BiPAP, 4 were intubated with 1 remaining on HFNC. Comparisons of age, gender, comorbidities, observations, change in observations and time to starting HFNC showed no significant escalation predictors.ConclusionsThis study identified no statistically significant predictors of escalation. There was an observed increase in PCCU admissions with decreased intubations. The resource implications of this therapy are significant and further studies should examine cost effectiveness of HFNC use outside of PCCU.