You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Changes in the use of humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen
  1. Sandeep Shetty1,2,
  2. Adesh Sundaresan1,
  3. Katie Hunt2,
  4. Prakash Desai3,
  5. Anne Greenough1,2,4
  1. 1Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, MRC and Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma, King's College London, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Child Health, Neonatal Intensive Care Centre, King's College Hospital, London, UK
  3. 3Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4NIHR Biomedical Centre at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Anne Greenough, NICU, 4th Floor Golden Jubilee Wing, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK; anne.greenough{at}kcl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-310497

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) has gained popularity in neonatal care. A systematic review1 of the results of nine trials, which included a total of 1112 infants, however, demonstrated that HHFNC was not superior to other modes of non-invasive ventilation in infants of >28 weeks gestational age. We, therefore, sought to determine whether clinical practice regarding HHFNC had changed since 2012 when all UK units were surveyed2 and also to identify why practitioners preferred HHFNC or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

    In 2015, lead clinicians of all 194 UK neonatal units were identified from the National Neonatal Audit …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AG and SS designed the study. SS, AS and KH collected the data for 2015 survey. SS and PD collected data for the 2012 survey. All the authors were involved in the production of the final manuscript.

    • Funding The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles

    • Fantoms
      Highlights from this issue
      Ben Stenson
      Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2016; 101 F279-F279 Published Online First: 17 Jun 2016. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311339