Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula therapy and its effectiveness in home settings for paediatric obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) remains a major issue for children and adolescents with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Hence, there is a demand for alternative treatment options. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in children with moderate-to-severe OSA (MS-OSA) and to investigate adherence, quality of life and behavioural measures with HFNC compared to CPAP. METHODS: Children and adolescents with MS-OSA underwent titration studies with HFNC and CPAP on two consecutive nights. The efficacy of HFNC in treating MS-OSA, determined by the residual obstructive apnoea-hypopnoea index (OAHI) with the device, was compared to CPAP. Eligible participants underwent a 6-month interventional trial with HFNC and CPAP to compare self-reported adherence, quality of life, and behavioural measures. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants (90 % male) with a mean ± SD age of 12.8 ± 3.0 years completed the titration studies. The mean residual OAHI with HFNC and CPAP was 5.4 ± SD 12.6 and 3.59 ± SD 7.8 events/h respectively (p = 0.281). The mean [95 % confidence interval] reductions in OAHI with HFNC and CPAP were -7.2 [-9.2, -5.1] vs. -9.0 [-12.2, -5.9] respectively. Twenty-two participants underwent the intervention study. Overall, adherence to CPAP was significantly better than that to HFNC therapy. Significant improvement in OSA-18 scores was observed with both HFNC and CPAP, but not in daytime sleepiness and behavioural measures. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC is an alternative treatment option with comparable efficacy to CPAP in alleviating disease severity in paediatric patients with MS-OSA. However, self-reported adherence and behavioural outcomes were not improved with HFNC therapy compared to CPAP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".