ArticlePediatric pulmonology2024
A matched analysis of the use of high flow nasal cannula for pediatric severe acute asthma.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intravenous Bronchodilators in Pediatric Critical Asthma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Pooled it
- Respiratory Support in Pediatric Critical and Near-Fatal Asthma: A Narrative Review.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Review
- A matched analysis of the use of high flow nasal cannula for pediatric severe acute asthma.Pediatric pulmonology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleThe high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) device is commonly used to treat pediatric severe acute asthma. However, there is little evidence regarding its effectiveness in real-world practice.
objectivesWe sought to compare the physiologic effects and clinical outcomes for children treated for severe acute asthma with HFNC versus matched controls.
methodsThis was a single-center retrospective matched cohort study at a quaternary care children's hospital. Children ages 2-18 hospitalized for severe acute asthma from 2015 to 2022 were included. Encounters receiving treatment with HFNC within the first 24 h of hospitalization were included as cases. Controls were primarily treated with oxygen facemask. Logistic regression 1:1 propensity score matching was done using demographics, initial vital signs, and medications. The primary outcome was an improvement in clinical asthma symptoms in the first 24 h of hospitalization measured as percent change from initial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf 693 eligible cases, 443 were matched to eligible controls. Propensity scores were closely aligned between the cohorts, with the only significant difference in clinical characteristics being a higher percentage of patients of Black race in the control group (54.3% vs. 46.6%; p = 0.02). Compared to the matched controls, the HFNC cohort had smaller improvements in heart rate (-11.5% [-20.9; -0.9] vs. -14.7% [-22.6;-5.7]; p < 0.01), respiratory rate (-14.3% [-27.9;5.4] vs. -16.7% [-31.5;0.0]; p = 0.03), and pediatric asthma severity score (-14.3% [-28.6;0.0] vs. -20.0% [-33.3;0.0]; p < 0.01) after 24 h of hospitalization. The HFNC cohort also had longer pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay (LOS) (1.5 days [1.1;2.1] vs. 1.2 days [0.9;1.8]; p < 0.01) and hospital LOS (2.8 days [2.1;3.8] vs. 2.5 days [1.9;3.4]; p < 0.01). When subgrouping to younger patients (2-3 years old), or those with the highest severity scores (PASS > 9), those treated with HFNC had no difference in clinical symptom improvements but maintained a longer PICU LOS.
conclusionsEncounters using HFNC for severe acute pediatric asthma had decreased clinical improvement in 24 h of hospitalization compared to matched controls and increased LOS. Specific subgroups of younger patients and those with the highest severity scores showed no differences in clinical symptom improvement suggesting differential effects in specific patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.