↓ Skip to main content

Clinical impact of implementing humidified high-flow nasal cannula on interhospital transport among children admitted to a PICU with respiratory distress: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical impact of implementing humidified high-flow nasal cannula on interhospital transport among children admitted to a PICU with respiratory distress: a cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, June 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13054-021-03620-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shinya Miura, Kazue Yamaoka, Satoshi Miyata, Warwick Butt, Sile Smith

Abstract

There is a limited evidence for humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) use on inter-hospital transport. Despite this, its use during transport is increasing in children with respiratory distress worldwide. In 2015 HHFNC was implemented on a specialized pediatric retrieval team serving for Victoria. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the HHFNC implementation on the retrieval team on the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay and respiratory support use. We performed a cohort study using a comparative interrupted time-series approach controlling for patient and temporal covariates, and population-adjusted analysis. We studied 3022 children admitted to a PICU in Victoria with respiratory distress January 2010-December 2019. Patients were divided in pre-intervention era (2010-2014) and post-intervention era (2015-2019). 1006 children following interhospital transport and 2016 non-transport children were included. Median (IQR) age was 1.4 (0.7-4.5) years. Pneumonia (39.1%) and bronchiolitis (34.3%) were common. On retrieval, HHFNC was used in 5.0% (21/420) and 45.9% (269/586) in pre- and post-intervention era. In an unadjusted model, median (IQR) PICU length of stay was 2.2 (1.1-4.2) and 1.7 (0.9-3.2) days in the pre- and post-intervention era in transported children while the figures were 2.4 (1.3-4.9) and 2.1 (1.2-4.5) days in non-transport children. In the multivariable regression model, the intervention was associated with the reduced PICU length of stay (ratio 0.64, 95% confidential interval 0.49-0.83, p = 0.001) with the predicted reduction of PICU length of stay being - 10.6 h (95% confidential interval - 16.9 to - 4.3 h), and decreased respiratory support use (- 25.1 h, 95% confidential interval - 47.9 to - 2.3 h, p = 0.03). Sensitivity analyses including a model excluding less severe children showed similar results. In population-adjusted analyses, respiratory support use decreased from 4837 to 3477 person-hour per year in transported children over the study era, while the reduction was 594 (from 9553 to 8959) person-hour per year in non-transport children. With regard to the safety, there were no escalations of respiratory support mode during interhospital transport. The implementation of HHFNC on interhospital transport was associated with the reduced PICU length of stay and respiratory support use among PICU admissions with respiratory distress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 14 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2021.
All research outputs
#18,805,293
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,570
of 6,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#322,842
of 447,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#92
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.