Powered by OpenAIRE graph

G438(P) A multi-centre service evaluation of the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in the management of infants with bronchiolitis

Authors: I Fullwood; W Aung; K Holliday; A Vardon; J Nuthall; H Vawda; F Roked; +1 Authors

G438(P) A multi-centre service evaluation of the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in the management of infants with bronchiolitis

Abstract

Aims For the management of patients with bronchiolitis, high flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNCO) therapy is not recommended in national guidelines. Despite this, it is frequently used. We sought out to document how HFNCO therapy is currently being used for patients with bronchiolitis and what the outcomes are for this patient group. Methods We carried out a retrospective multi-centre service evaluation, with a standardised proforma developed by trainees. Data was collected over a 4 week period, as selected by local data collectors, between 1 st November 2017 and 31 st January 2018. Inclusion criteria were infants Results Data was collected in 7 out of 13 potential hospitals. 78 case notes were reviewed. Median age and weight were 9.3 weeks (range 1.7–50.5), and 4.91 kg (range 2.5–10.88) respectively. There was statistically significant improvement in HR and RR one hour after commencing HFNCO (p=0.033 and 0.003 respectively). Median starting flow rate was 1.99 L/kg (range 1.12–3.84), with maximum flow rates of 4.8 L/kg being used. 36 (50%) patients required escalation of care to at least CPAP. HFNCO was delivered on a paediatric ward for 47 patients (60.3%) and in a HDU bed space for 31 (39.7%) with comparable numbers needing escalation regardless of ward setting; ward 48.6% vs HDU 46.7%. 11 patients (14.5%) required admission to PICU. Feeding practices varied whilst on HFNCO therapy, including NG feeds (24.7%), intravenous (IV) fluids (53.2%) or both (22.1%). If on IV fluids, a third of patients had fluids restricted to Conclusions Our real-life data demonstrates wide variability in the use of HFNCO therapy with half of patients going on to need escalation of care. We feel lack of national guidance contributes to this variability in management and more research is needed to determine optimal use, to gain greatest benefit, in a cost-effective way.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average