Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›High-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care: the FIRST-ABC RCTs›References

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

High-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care: the FIRST-ABC RCTs · References

References

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 9 min read

  1. Richards-Belle A, Davis P, Drikite L, Feltbower R, Grieve R, Harrison DA, et al. FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care. BMJ Open 2020;10:e038002.
  2. Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network State of the Nation Report 2022. Leeds: Universities of Leeds and Leicester; 2023.
  3. Kneyber MC, Zhang H, Slutsky AS. Ventilator-induced lung injury. Similarity and differences between children and adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014;190:258–65.25003705
  4. Smith A, Franca UL, McManus ML. Trends in the use of noninvasive and invasive ventilation for severe asthma. Pediatrics 2020;146:e20200534.32917845
  5. Pelletier JH, Au AK, Fuhrman D, Clark RSB, Horvat C. Trends in bronchiolitis ICU admissions and ventilation practices: 2010–2019. Pediatrics 2021;147:e2020039115.33972381
  6. Dohna-Schwake C, Stehling F, Tschiedel E, Wallot M, Mellies U. Non-invasive ventilation on a pediatric intensive care unit: feasibility, efficacy, and predictors of success. Pediatr Pulmonol 2011;46:1114–20.21618715
  7. Nava S, Carbone G, DiBattista N, Bellone A, Baiardi P, Cosentini R, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a multicenter randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;168:1432–7.12958051
  8. Antonelli M, Conti G, Rocco M, Bufi M, De Blasi RA, Vivino G, et al. A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 1998;339:429–35.9700176
  9. Ho JJ, Subramaniam P, Davis PG. Continuous distending pressure for respiratory distress in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015:CD002271.26141572
  10. Roehr CC, Proquitte H, Hammer H, Wauer RR, Morley CJ, Schmalisch G. Positive effects of early continuous positive airway pressure on pulmonary function in extremely premature infants: results of a subgroup analysis of the COIN trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96:F371–3.20584798
  11. Kneyber MCJ, de Luca D, Calderini E, Jarreau PH, Javouhey E, Lopez-Herce J, et al.; Respiratory Failure Section of the European Society for Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care. Recommendations for mechanical ventilation of critically ill children from the Paediatric Mechanical Ventilation Consensus Conference (PEMVECC). Intensive Care Med 2017;43:1764–80.28936698
  12. Wolfler A, Calderini E, Iannella E, Conti G, Biban P, Dolcini A, et al.; Network of Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Study Group. Evolution of noninvasive mechanical ventilation use: a cohort study among Italian PICUs. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2015;16:418–27.25828780
  13. Donlan M, Fontela PS, Puligandla PS. Use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in acute viral bronchiolitis: a systematic review. Pediatr Pulmonol 2011;46:736–46.21618716
  14. Lee JH, Rehder KJ, Williford L, Cheifetz IM, Turner DA. Use of high flow nasal cannula in critically ill infants, children, and adults: a critical review of the literature. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:247–57.23143331
  15. Ramnarayan P, Schibler A. Glass half empty or half full? The story of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in critically ill children. Intensive Care Med 2017;43:246–9.28124737
  16. Dysart K, Miller TL, Wolfson MR, Shaffer TH. Research in high flow therapy: mechanisms of action. Respir Med 2009;103:1400–5.19467849
  17. Pham TM, O’Malley L, Mayfield S, Martin S, Schibler A. The effect of high flow nasal cannula therapy on the work of breathing in infants with bronchiolitis. Pediatr Pulmonol 2015;50:713–20.24846750
  18. Hough JL, Pham TM, Schibler A. Physiologic effect of high-flow nasal cannula in infants with bronchiolitis. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2014;15:e214–9.24705569
  19. Schibler A, Pham TM, Dunster KR, Foster K, Barlow A, Gibbons K, Hough JL. Reduced intubation rates for infants after introduction of high-flow nasal prong oxygen delivery. Intensive Care Med 2011;37:847–52.21369809
  20. McKiernan C, Chua LC, Visintainer PF, Allen H. High flow nasal cannulae therapy in infants with bronchiolitis. J Pediatr 2010;156:634–8.20036376
  21. Kawaguchi A, Yasui Y, deCaen A, Garros D. The clinical impact of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula on pediatric respiratory distress. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017;18:112–9.27741041
  22. Mayfield S, Jauncey-Cooke J, Hough JL, Schibler A, Gibbons K, Bogossian F. High-flow nasal cannula therapy for respiratory support in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014:CD009850.24604698
  23. Beggs S, Wong ZH, Kaul S, Ogden KJ, Walters JA. High-flow nasal cannula therapy for infants with bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;3:CD009609.
  24. Fleeman N, Mahon J, Bates V, Dickson R, Dundar Y, Dwan K, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2016;20:1–68.
  25. Corley A, Rickard CM, Aitken LM, Johnston A, Barnett A, Fraser JF, et al. High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;5:CD010172.28555461
  26. Zhao H, Wang H, Sun F, Lyu S, An Y. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to noninvasive mechanical ventilation on intubation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2017;21:184.28701227
  27. Baudin F, Pouyau R. High-flow nasal cannula in the pediatric ICU: popular or efficient? Respir Care 2017;62:1116–7.28733317
  28. Cambonie G, Pons-Odena M, Baleine J, Milesi C. High flow nasal cannulae for acute viral bronchiolitis in young infants: evidence-based medicine is underway to define target populations and optimal flows. J Thorac Dis 2017;9:1763–6.28839957
  29. Inoue S, Tamaki Y, Sonobe S, Egawa J, Kawaguchi M. A pediatric case developing critical abdominal distension caused by a combination of humidified high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and nasal airway. JA Clin Rep 2018;4:4.29457114
  30. Orzechowska I, Sadique MZ, Thomas K, Davis P, Morris KP, Mouncey PR, et al. First-line support for assistance in breathing in children: statistical and health economic analysis plan for the FIRST-ABC trial. Trials 2020;21:903.33129360
  31. Ramnarayan P, Richards-Belle A, Drikite L, Saull M, Orzechowska I, Darnell R, et al.; FIRST-ABC Step-Up RCT Investigators and the Paediatric Critical Care Society Study Group. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy vs. continuous positive airway pressure therapy on liberation from respiratory support in acutely ill children admitted to pediatric critical care units: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022;328:162–72.35707984
  32. Ramnarayan P, Richards-Belle A, Drikite L, Saull M, Orzechowska I, Darnell R, et al.; FIRST-ABC Step-Down RCT Investigators and the Paediatric Critical Care Society Study Group. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy vs. continuous positive airway pressure following extubation on liberation from respiratory support in critically ill children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022;327:1555–65.35390113
  33. Woodcock J, LaVange LM. Master protocols to study multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both. N Engl J Med 2017;377:62–70.28679092
  34. University of Liverpool. CONseNt Methods in Paediatric Emergency and Urgent Care Trials: University of Liverpool. URL: www.liverpool.ac.uk/psychology-health-and-society/research/connect/ (accessed 19 March 2024).
  35. Harron K, Woolfall K, Dwan K, Gamble C, Mok Q, Ramnarayan P, Gilbert R. Deferred consent for randomized controlled trials in emergency care settings. Pediatrics 2015;136:e1316–22.26438711
  36. Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C, Gilbert R, Mok Q, Young B; CONNECT advisory group. How parents and practitioners experience research without prior consent (deferred consent) for emergency research involving children with life threatening conditions: a mixed method study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008522.
  37. Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C, Young B. How experience makes a difference: practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:45.24195717
  38. O’Hara CB, Canter RR, Mouncey PR, Carter A, Jones N, Nadel S, et al. A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock. Arch Dis Child 2018;103:28–32.28847877
  39. Peters MJ, Jones GAL, Wiley D, Wulff J, Ramnarayan P, Ray S, et al.; Oxy-PICU Investigators for the Paediatric Intensive Care Society Study Group (PICS-SG). Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets in critically ill children: the randomised multiple-centre pilot Oxy-PICU trial. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:1240–8.29868973
  40. Ramnarayan P, Lister P, Dominguez T, Habibi P, Edmonds N, Canter RR, et al.; United Kingdom Paediatric Intensive Care Society Study Group (PICS-SG). FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care. Crit Care 2018;22:144.29866165
  41. Peters MJ, Khan I, Woolfall K, Deja E, Mouncey PR, Wulff J, et al. Different temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever due to infection: the FEVER feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019;23:1–148.
  42. van Dijk M, Peters JWB, van Deventer P, Tibboel D. The COMFORT Behavior Scale: a tool for assessing pain and sedation in infants. Am J Nurs 2005;105:33–6.
  43. Carter MC, Miles MS. The Parental Stressor Scale: pediatric intensive care unit. Matern Child Nurs J 1989;18:187–98.2491508
  44. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in medicine – reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2189–94.18032770
  45. Sun X, Ioannidis JP, Agoritsas T, Alba AC, Guyatt G. How to use a subgroup analysis: users’ guide to the medical literature. JAMA 2014;311:405–11.24449319
  46. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Health Technology Evaluations: The Manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2022.
  47. NHS Digital. HRG4 + 2019/20 Local Payment Grouper. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-casemix-office/downloads-groupers-and-tools/local-payment-grouper-2019-20
  48. Harrison DA, Brady AR, Rowan K. Case mix, outcome and length of stay for admissions to adult, general critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme Database. Crit Care 2004;8:R99–111.15025784
  49. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2020. Kent: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2020.
  50. Varni JW, Seid M, Rode CA. The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Med Care 1999;37:126–39.10024117
  51. Lambe T, Frew E, Ives NJ, Woolley RL, Cummins C, Brettell EA, et al.; PREDNOS Trial Team. Mapping the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales onto the Child Health Utility Index-9 Dimension (CHU-9D) Score for Economic Evaluation in Children. PharmacoEconomics 2018;36:451–65.29264866
  52. Stevens K. Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. PharmacoEconomics 2012;30:729–47.22788262
  53. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96.15497198
  54. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99.21225900
  55. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York; Chichester: Wiley; 1987.
  56. Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2008;26:781–98.18767898
  57. Mpundu-Kaambwa C, Chen G, Russo R, Stevens K, Petersen KD, Ratcliffe J. Mapping CHU9D utility scores from the PedsQL TM 4.0 SF-15. PharmacoEconomics 2017;35:453–67.27928758
  58. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
  59. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II – An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2015;18:161–72.25773551
  60. Thompson SG, Nixon RM. How sensitive are cost-effectiveness analyses to choice of parametric distributions? Med Decis Making 2005;25:416–23.16061893
  61. Zhao X, Qin Q, Zhang X. Outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula vs. nasal continuous positive airway pressure in young children with respiratory distress: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pediatr 2021;9:759297.34805049
  62. Milesi C, Essouri S, Pouyau R, Liet JM, Afanetti M, Portefaix A, et al.; Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et d’Urgences Pédiatriques (GFRUP). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) for the initial respiratory management of acute viral bronchiolitis in young infants: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRAMONTANE study). Intensive Care Med 2017;43:209–16.28124736
  63. Clayton JA, McKee B, Slain KN, Rotta AT, Shein SL. Outcomes of children with bronchiolitis treated with high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019;20:128–35.30720646
  64. Badruddin SS, Clayton JA, McKee BP, Slain KN, Rotta AT, Malay S, Shein SL. Prevalence of reintubation within 24 hours of extubation in bronchiolitis: retrospective cohort study using the virtual pediatric systems database. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2021;22:474–82.33031349
  65. Morris JV, Kapetanstrataki M, Parslow RC, Davis PJ, Ramnarayan P. Patterns of use of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula therapy in PICUS in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019;20:223–32.30395107
← DiscussionAdditional information →

Attribution. Padmanabhan Ramnarayan; Alvin Richards-Belle; Karen Thomas; Laura Drikite; Zia Sadique; Silvia Moler Zapata et al. (2025). High-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care: the FIRST-ABC RCTs. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2025 Ramnarayan et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK614104. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • References

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support