MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2803226562 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.082

Impact of high flow nasal cannula implementation on the rate of intubation for bronchiolitis in Canada

2018· article· en· W2803226562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hilarie Garland

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchiolitisNasal cannulaMedicineIntubationEmergency medicineIntensive care unitPediatricsIntensive care medicineCannulaAnesthesiaRespiratory systemSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Bronchiolitis affects more than one-third of children less than two years of age and is the most common reason for admission to hospital in the first year of life. Hospitalization rates have been on the rise, leading to an increase in healthcare expense, morbidity and impact on families. Bronchiolitis can have a heavy burden on health care resources including intubation and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions. Non-invasive respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is being used more routinely in paediatric centers, though evidence of efficacy in bronchiolitis is insufficient to date. We examined the impact that implementation of HFNC has had on intubation rate and ICU admissions for patients with bronchiolitis in Paediatric centres in Canada. OBJECTIVES Our primary objective was to determine the impact of HFNC on intubation rate in Canada for paediatric patients with bronchiolitis. Our secondary objectives were to determine the impact of HFNC on ICU admission rate, ICU length of stay (LOS) and total hospital LOS. DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a multicentre, interrupted time series analysis to examine intubation rates pre- to post-implementation of HFNC for children less than 2 years with bronchiolitis. Data were obtained from the CIHI database using the Canadian Coding Standards. Paediatric tertiary centres that introduced HFNC between 2009–2014 were included, and data were collected from January 2005 to December 2016. RESULTS A total of 17,643 patients met inclusion criteria; 5,862 were before and 11,791 after implementation of HFNC. Comparing the two groups, there was no significant change in the rate of intubation after HFNC was introduced. There was also no significant change in the trend of average LOS in hospital between the two groups. There was a significant increase in ICU admission rates after the introduction of HFNC. Prior to HFNC implementation, there was an increase in average ICU LOS, with a decrease in the overall trend following the introduction of HFNC. CONCLUSION Initiating HFNC in Canadian paediatric centres resulted in no significant change in intubation rates or total LOS in hospital, but was associated with an increase in ICU admissions and a decrease in ICU LOS. Though HFNC does not prevent intubations, it may improve clinical severity with shorter time in ICU needed. Adopting use of HFNC on the ward in the tertiary care setting may help to address increasing ICU admission rates with associated healthcare expenses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→