↓ Skip to main content

High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006405.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominic Wilkinson, Chad Andersen, Colm PF O'Donnell, Antonio G De Paoli, Brett J Manley

Abstract

High flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) are small, thin, tapered binasal tubes that deliver oxygen or blended oxygen/air at gas flows of more than 1 L/min. HFNC are increasingly being used as a form of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants. To compare the safety and efficacy of HFNC with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 1 January 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 1 January 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 1 January 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing HFNC with other non-invasive forms of respiratory support in preterm infants immediately after birth or following extubation. The authors extracted and analysed data, and calculated risk ratio, risk difference and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome. We identified 15 studies for inclusion in the review. The studies differed in the interventions compared (nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), non-humidified HFNC, models for delivering HFNC), the gas flows used and the indications for respiratory support (primary support from soon after birth, post-extubation support, weaning from CPAP support). When used as primary respiratory support after birth compared to CPAP (4 studies, 439 infants), there were no differences in the primary outcomes of death (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.73; 4 studies, 439 infants) or chronic lung disease (CLD) (typical RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.64; 4 studies, 439 infants). HFNC use resulted in longer duration of respiratory support, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes. One study (75 infants) showed no differences between HFNC and NIPPV as primary support. Following extubation (total 6 studies, 934 infants), there were no differences between HFNC and CPAP in the primary outcomes of death (typical RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 5 studies, 896 infants) or CLD (typical RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 5 studies, 893 infants). There was no difference in the rate of treatment failure (typical RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; 5 studies, 786 infants) or reintubation (typical RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 6 studies, 934 infants). Infants randomised to HFNC had reduced nasal trauma (typical RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79; typical risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.08; 4 studies, 645 infants). There was a small reduction in the rate of pneumothorax (typical RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.06; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00; 5 studies 896 infants) in infants treated with HFNC. Subgroup analysis found no difference in the rate of the primary outcomes between HFNC and CPAP in preterm infants in different gestational age subgroups, though there were only small numbers of extremely preterm and late preterm infants. One trial (28 infants) found similar rates of reintubation for humidified and non-humidified HFNC, and two other trials (100 infants) found no difference between different models of equipment used to deliver humidified HFNC. For infants weaning from non-invasive respiratory support (CPAP), two studies (149 infants) found that preterm infants randomised to HFNC had a reduced duration of hospitalisation compared with infants who remained on CPAP. HFNC has similar rates of efficacy to other forms of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants for preventing treatment failure, death and CLD. Most evidence is available for the use of HFNC as post-extubation support. Following extubation, HFNC is associated with less nasal trauma, and may be associated with reduced pneumothorax compared with nasal CPAP. Further adequately powered randomised controlled trials should be undertaken in preterm infants comparing HFNC with other forms of primary non-invasive support after birth and for weaning from non-invasive support. Further evidence is also required for evaluating the safety and efficacy of HFNC in extremely preterm and mildly preterm subgroups, and for comparing different HFNC devices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 145 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 26 18%
Student > Master 22 15%
Other 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 56 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 47%
Unspecified 39 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 15%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 11 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 07 October 2019.
All research outputs
#537,719
of 13,622,686 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,635
of 10,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,120
of 265,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,622,686 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 265,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.