| Autor: |
Rogerson CM; Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana., White BR; Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah., Smith M; Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York., Hogan AH; Division of Hospital Medicine, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Hartford, Connecticut., Abu-Sultaneh S; Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana., Carroll CL; Department of Pediatrics, Wolfson Children's, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida; and., Shein SL; Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio. |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Zdroj: |
Annals of the American Thoracic Society [Ann Am Thorac Soc] 2024 Apr; Vol. 21 (4), pp. 612-619. |
| DOI: |
10.1513/AnnalsATS.202309-807OC |
| Abstrakt: |
Rationale: Over 20,000 children are hospitalized in the United States for asthma every year. Although initial treatment guidelines are well established, there is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal respiratory support devices for these patients. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate institutional and temporal variability in the use of respiratory support modalities for pediatric critical asthma. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Virtual Pediatrics Systems database. Our study population included children older than 2 years old admitted to a VPS contributing pediatric intensive care unit from January 2012 to December 2021 with a primary diagnosis of asthma or status asthmaticus. We evaluated the percentage of encounters using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for all institutions, then divided institutions into quintiles based on the volume of patients. We created logistic regression models to determine the influence of institutional volume and year of admission on respiratory support modality use. We also conducted time-series analyses using Kendall's tau. Results: Our population included 77,115 patient encounters from 163 separate institutions. Institutional use of respiratory modalities had significant variation in HFNC (28.3%, interquartile range [IQR], 11.0-49.0%; P < 0.01), CPAP (1.4%; IQR, 0.3-4.3%; P < 0.01), NIV (8.6%; IQR, 3.5-16.1%; P < 0.01), and IMV (5.1%; IQR, 3.1-8.2%; P < 0.01). Increased institutional patient volume was associated with significantly increased use of NIV (odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 1.29-1.36; P < 0.01) and CPAP (OR, 1.20; 1.15-1.25; P < 0.01), and significantly decreased use of HFNC (OR, 0.80; 0.79-0.81; P < 0.01) and IMV (OR, 0.82; 0.79-0.86; P < 0.01). Time was also associated with a significant increase in the use of HFNC (11.0-52.3%; P < 0.01), CPAP (1.6-5.4%; P < 0.01), and NIV (3.7-21.2%; P < 0.01), whereas there was no significant change in IMV use (6.1-4.0%; P = 0.11). Conclusions: Higher-volume centers are using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation more frequently for pediatric critical asthma and lower frequencies of HFNC and IMV. Treatment with HFNC, CPAP, and NIV for this population is increasing in the last decade. |
| Databáze: |
MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
