Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Comparison of 3 different flow rates of high-flow nasal cannula (1 L/kg/min versus 2 L/kg/min versus 3 L/kg/min) in management of children admitted with bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) is widely used in children with bronchiolitis, but the optimal flow rate remains unclear. This study compared three different flow rates (1 L/kg/min, 2 L/kg/min, and 3 L/kg/min) to determine the most effective setting for respiratory support in bronchiolitis. The objective of this study was to ascertain the optimal flow rate of HHFNC required for management in children aged 1 month to 1 year diagnosed with moderate-to-severe bronchiolitis as per American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) guidelines (2014) and graded for severity as per clinical respiratory score. A total of 90 children were enrolled, with 30 participants in each group. to compare three different flow rates of high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) therapy (1 L/kg/min, 2 L/kg/min, and 3L/kg/min) in children with bronchiolitis to determine the optimal setting for respiratory support. A randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Paediatrics at a tertiary care centre. The participants were. Patients were randomly assigned to receive HHFNC at 1 L/kg/min, 2 L/kg/min, or 3 L/kg/min. Oxygen was delivered via a heated humidifier to maintain SpO
conclusionHHFNC at 1 L/kg/min showed good clinical with fewer improvement adverse events, while 2 L/kg/min had the lowest PICU admissions and ventilation needs. In contrast, 3 L/kg/min was linked to higher complications and longer hospital stay. WHAT IS KNOWN: • In management of children with acute bronchiolitis Humidified and heated air that is blended with oxygen and delivered through a nasal cannula (HHFNC) has emerged as mainstay of therapy to provide respiratory support with proven benefits like decreased work of breathing ,improved oxygenation, and reduced rates of intubation. • In a previously published work by Milesi et. al. HFNC flow rates of 3l/kg/min versus 2l/kg/min in infants up to six months age admitted to hospital with moderate to severe acute viral bronchiolitis were compared and both flow rates were comparable in clinical characterstics studied with more side effects seen with high flow rates. WHAT IS NEW: • This study provides granular data on three different flow rates (1, 2, and 3 L/kg/min) of HHFNC, unlike many studies that compare only HHFNC vs. standard therapy. • This study also tries to provide the optimal balance between effectiveness and patient comfort (favouring 2 L/kg/min) and suggests that weaning success is higher with lower flow rates, reinforcing patient-friendly management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41430493What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.