Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Comparison of the pharyngeal pressure provided by two heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannulae devices in premature infants
Article first published online: 18 JUN 2013
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health © 2013 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (Royal Australasian College of Physicians)
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health
Volume 49, Issue 7, pages 554–556, July 2013
How to Cite
Collins, C. L., Holberton, J. R. and König, K. (2013), Comparison of the pharyngeal pressure provided by two heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannulae devices in premature infants. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 49: 554–556. doi: 10.1111/jpc.12277
- Issue published online: 11 JUL 2013
- Article first published online: 18 JUN 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 15 FEB 2013
- continuous positive airway pressure;
- humidified high-flow nasal cannula;
- non-invasive ventilation;
This study aims to determine if there is a difference in the pharyngeal pressure, measured as a surrogate for continuous positive distending airway pressure, delivered to premature infants between two commonly used heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannulae (HHHFNC) devices: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare HHHFNC and Vapotherm 2000i.
Pharyngeal pressure measurements were taken from stable premature infants receiving HHHFNC for respiratory support. Flow rates of 2–8 L/min were studied.
Nine infants had pharyngeal pressure measurements recorded with both HHHFNC devices at flow rates of 2–8 L/min. There was no difference in pharyngeal pressures recorded between devices at flow rates of 2–6 L/min; measured pressure was linearly associated with flow (R2 = 0.9). At flow rates of 7 L/min, Vapotherm delivered a mean (standard deviation) pharyngeal pressure of 4.7 (2.2) cmH2O compared with 4.23 (2.2) cmH2O by the Fisher & Paykel device (P = 0.04). At a flow of 8 L/min, the mean pharyngeal pressure via Vapotherm was 4.9 (2.2) cmH2O compared with 4.1 (2.3) cmH2O with the Fisher & Paykel device (P = 0.05).
Both HHHFNC delivered similar pharyngeal pressures at flow rates of 2–6 L/min. The pressure limiter valve of the Fisher & Paykel device attenuated the pharyngeal pressures at flows of 7 and 8 L/min. Vapotherm trended towards higher delivered pharyngeal pressure at flow rates 7 and 8 L/min, but the clinical significance of the difference remains unclear.