The Clinical Impact of Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Pediatric Respiratory Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact on a single PICU of introducing high-flow nasal cannula as a management tool for respiratory distress. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, including an interrupted time series analysis with a propensity score adjustment and a matched-pair analysis. SETTING: A single university-affiliated children's hospital PICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Differences in clinical outcomes when comparing the pre-high-flow nasal cannula era (2004-2008) and the high-flow nasal cannula era (2010-2014), excluding 2009 as a washout period, and clinical impacts of high-flow nasal cannula as an exposure of interest. A total of 1,766 children met the inclusion criteria (pre-high-flow nasal cannula era: 699 patients; high-flow nasal cannula era: 1,067 patients). High-flow nasal cannula was used in 455 patients (42.6%) in the high-flow nasal cannula era. The interrupted time series analysis failed to show a statistically significant difference in PICU length of stay, but the duration of invasive ventilation was shortened by an average of 2.3 days in the high-flow nasal cannula era group (95% CI, 0.2-4.4; p = 0.030). The PICU intubation rate in the high-flow nasal cannula era was 0.72 times that of the pre-high-flow nasal cannula era (95% CI, 0.63-0.84; p < 0.001). A total of 373 pairs were formed for the matched-pair analysis. The odds for being intubated in the PICU for those patients using high-flow nasal cannula was 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.16; p < 0.001) when compared with those who did not use high-flow nasal cannula. The PICU length of stay increased by 2.9 days in those patients in which high-flow nasal cannula was used (95% CI, 1.3-4.4; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of high-flow nasal cannula as a therapy for respiratory distress in the PICU was associated with a significant decrease in the PICU intubation rate with no associated change in mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".