High-flow nasal cannula and bilevel positive airway pressure for pediatric status asthmaticus: a single center, retrospective descriptive and comparative cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to describe patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for children hospitalized for status asthmaticus (SA) receiving high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). METHODS: We performed a single center, retrospective cohort study among 39 children admitted for SA aged 5-17 years from January 2016 to May 2019 to a quaternary pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Cohorts were defined by BiPAP versus HFNC exposure and assessed to determine if differences existed in demographics, anthropometrics, comorbidities, asthma severity indices, historical factors, duration of noninvasive ventilation, and asthma-related clinical outcomes (i.e. length of stay, mechanical ventilation rates, exposure to concurrent sedatives/anxiolysis, and rate of adjunctive therapy exposure). RESULTS: Thirty-three percent (n = 13) received HFNC (33%) and 67% (n = 26) BiPAP. Children receiving BiPAP had greater age (10.9 ± 3.7 vs. 6.8 ± 2.2 years, P < 0.01), asthma severity (proportion with severe NHLBI classification: 38% vs. 0%, P < 0.01; median pediatric asthma severity score: 13[12,14] vs. 10[9,12], P < 0.01), previous PICU admissions (62% vs. 15%, P = 0.01), frequency of prescribed anxiolysis/sedation (42% vs. 8%, P = 0.02), and median duration of continuous albuterol (1.7[1,3.1] vs. 0.9[0.7,1.6] days, P = 0.03) compared to those on HFNC. Those on HFNC more commonly were treated comorbid bacterial pneumonia (69% vs. 19%, P < 0.01). No differences in NIV duration, mortality, mechanical ventilation rates, or LOS were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a trial of BiPAP or HFNC appears well tolerated in children with SA. Prospective trials are needed to establish modality superiority and identify patient or clinical characteristics that prompt use of HFNC over BiPAP.

Noninvasive Respiratory Support for Pediatric Critical Asthma: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) for pediatric critical asthma includes CPAP; bi-level positive airway pressure (BPAP); and heated, humidified, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). We used the Virtual Pediatric System database to estimate NRS by prescribing rates for pediatric critical asthma and characterize patient clinical features and in-patient outcomes by the initial NRS device applied. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study from 125 participating pediatric ICUs among children 2-17 years of age hospitalized for critical asthma and prescribed NRS from 2017 through 2021. The primary outcomes were NRS modality prescribing rates and trends. Secondary outcomes were descriptive and included demographics, comorbidities, severity of illness indices, and NRS failure rates (defined as escalation from the initial NRS modality to invasive ventilation, HFNC to BPAP or CPAP, or CPAP to BPAP). RESULTS: Of the 10,083 encounters studied, the initial NRS modalities prescribed varied widely by hospital center (HFNC: 69.7 ± 29.6%; BPAP: 27.2 ± 7.1%; CPAP: 3.1 ± 5.9%). The mean rates of HFNC use increased from 59.7% in 2017 to 71.9% in 2021 (+2.5%/y). In contrast, BPAP (-1.6%/y) and CPAP (-0.8%/y) utilization declined throughout the study period. Older children who were obese and with a higher Pediatric Risk of Mortality III-Probability of Mortality score were more frequently prescribed BPAP and CPAP compared with HFNC. Those children on HFNC experienced higher noninvasive respiratory support failure rates versus BPAP (7.3% vs 2.4%; P < .001) but a lower subsequent invasive ventilation rate versus BPAP (0.8% vs 2.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center cohort study, we observed that children with critical asthma are increasingly exposed to HFNC compared with BPAP and CPAP. Rates of HFNC failure were greater than those of BPAP failure, but a majority were transitioned to BPAP without subsequent invasive ventilation. The next steps include prospective trials, including practical end points such as patient comfort and optimal delivery of nebulized treatments to distinguish device superiority and suitable NRS utilization.