“…Current evidence is conclusive regarding the safety of HFNC. In a recent systematic review of seven RTCs, no severe adverse events and no increased risk of air leak syndromes were reported (9). Only mild skin lesions were reported in under 3% of patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Only mild skin lesions were reported in under 3% of patients. In addition, parents and carers favored HFNC because of the ability to feed and overall comfort (9,37). This aspect differs from CPAP, which is usually not well tolerated and interferes with patients' normal care, and is associated with a higher risk of air leak syndromes (38).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…HFNC has been associated with: increases in patients' functional residual capacity, reductions in the effects of oxygen dilution in trachea compared to NC (nasal cannula), dead space washout, and more compliance in relation to CPAP (8). This physiological effect has been re ected in randomized clinical trials, with signi cantly lower rates of treatment failure compared to NC, with few severe adverse events or safety issues (9). Despite this evidence and the frequent use of HFNC in the PICU (pediatric intensive care unit) setting, the economic impact of its use in the emergency setting has not yet been evaluated.…”
Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is a non-invasive ventilation system that was introduced as an alternative to CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), with a marked increase in its use in pediatric care settings .This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early use of HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. Methods: A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with oxygen by nasal cannula (control strategy) in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on bronchiolitis from tertiary centers in Rionegro, Colombia, while utilities were collected from the literature. Results:The QALYs per patient calculated in the base-case model were 0.9141 (95% CI 0.913- 0.915) in the HFNC and 0.9105 (95% CI 0.910- 0.911) in control group. The cost per patient was US$368 (95% CI US$ 323- 411) in HFNC and US$441 (95% CI US$ 384-498) per patient in the control group.Conclusions: HFNC in emergency settings was cost-effective for the hospital treatment of an infant with bronchiolitis
“…Current evidence is conclusive regarding the safety of HFNC. In a recent systematic review of seven RTCs, no severe adverse events and no increased risk of air leak syndromes were reported (9). Only mild skin lesions were reported in under 3% of patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Only mild skin lesions were reported in under 3% of patients. In addition, parents and carers favored HFNC because of the ability to feed and overall comfort (9,37). This aspect differs from CPAP, which is usually not well tolerated and interferes with patients' normal care, and is associated with a higher risk of air leak syndromes (38).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…HFNC has been associated with: increases in patients' functional residual capacity, reductions in the effects of oxygen dilution in trachea compared to NC (nasal cannula), dead space washout, and more compliance in relation to CPAP (8). This physiological effect has been re ected in randomized clinical trials, with signi cantly lower rates of treatment failure compared to NC, with few severe adverse events or safety issues (9). Despite this evidence and the frequent use of HFNC in the PICU (pediatric intensive care unit) setting, the economic impact of its use in the emergency setting has not yet been evaluated.…”
Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is a non-invasive ventilation system that was introduced as an alternative to CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), with a marked increase in its use in pediatric care settings .This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early use of HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. Methods: A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with oxygen by nasal cannula (control strategy) in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on bronchiolitis from tertiary centers in Rionegro, Colombia, while utilities were collected from the literature. Results:The QALYs per patient calculated in the base-case model were 0.9141 (95% CI 0.913- 0.915) in the HFNC and 0.9105 (95% CI 0.910- 0.911) in control group. The cost per patient was US$368 (95% CI US$ 323- 411) in HFNC and US$441 (95% CI US$ 384-498) per patient in the control group.Conclusions: HFNC in emergency settings was cost-effective for the hospital treatment of an infant with bronchiolitis
“…Es konnte gezeigt werden, dass durch diese Maßnahme die Notwendigkeit von Intubationen Intubation reduziert werden kann [ 7 ] Darüber hinaus gibt es Evidenz dafür, dass HFNC sicher und effektiv auch auf Normalstationen Normalstation angewendet werden kann [ 13 ]. Laut einem aktuellen Review, der nur randomisierte kontrollierte Studien analysiert hat, ist HFNC zwischen herkömmlicher Sauerstoffsupplementation und nasalem „continuous positive airway pressure“ (CPAP) zu positionieren und scheint nicht mit einer Verringerung der stationären Aufenthaltsdauer einherzugehen [ 14 ].…”
“…HFNC has been associated with: increases in patients' functional residual capacity, reductions in the effects of oxygen dilution in trachea compared to NC (nasal cannula), dead space washout, and more compliance in relation to CPAP [8]. This physiological effect has been reflected in randomized clinical trials, with significantly lower rates of treatment failure compared to NC, with few severe adverse events or safety issues [9]. Despite this evidence and the frequent use of HFNC in the PICU (pediatric intensive care unit) setting, the economic impact of its use in the emergency setting has not yet been evaluated.…”
Background
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is a non-invasive ventilation system that was introduced as an alternative to CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), with a marked increase in its use in pediatric care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early use of HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting.
Methods
A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with oxygen by nasal cannula (control strategy) in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on bronchiolitis from tertiary centers in Rionegro, Colombia, while utilities were collected from the literature.
Results
The QALYs per patient calculated in the base-case model were 0.9141 (95% CI 0.913–0.915) in the HFNC and 0.9105 (95% CI 0.910–0.911) in control group. The cost per patient was US$368 (95% CI US$ 323–411) in HFNC and US$441 (95% CI US$ 384–498) per patient in the control group.
Conclusions
HFNC was cost-effective HFNC compared to oxygen by nasal cannula in an infant with bronchiolitis in the emergency setting. The use of this technology in emergency settings will allow a more efficient use of resources, especially in low-resource countries with high prevalence of bronchiolitis .
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
