Oral feeding for infants and children receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure and high flow nasal cannula: a systematic review

被引:19
|
作者
Canning, Angie [1 ]
Clarke, Sally [2 ]
Thorning, Sarah [3 ]
Chauhan, Manbir [4 ]
Weir, Kelly A. [5 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Gold Coast Hlth, Gold Coast Univ Hosp, Speech Pathol, Gold Coast, Australia
[2] Childrens Hlth Queensland, Queensland Childrens Hosp, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[3] Gold Coast Hlth, Gold Coast Univ Hosp, Lib Serv, Gold Cost, Australia
[4] Gold Coast Hlth, Gold Coast Univ Hosp, Newborn Care Unit, Gold Coast, Australia
[5] Griffith Univ, Allied Hlth Sci, Gold Coast, Australia
[6] Griffith Univ, Menzies Hlth Inst Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia
[7] Allied Hlth Res Gold Coast Hlth, Gold Coast, Australia
关键词
Oral feeding; nCPAP; HFNC; Pediatric; Swallowing;
D O I
10.1186/s12887-021-02531-4
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to determine whether introduction of oral feeding for infants and children receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) respiratory support facilitates achievement of full oral feeding without adverse effects, compared to no oral feeding (NPO; nil per oral) on CPAP or HFNC.MethodsA protocol was lodged with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and AustHealth from database inception to 10th June 2020. Study population included children (preterm to <18years) on nCPAP or HFNC who were orally feeding. Primary outcomes included full or partial oral feeding and oropharyngeal aspiration. Secondary outcomes examined adverse events including clinical signs of aspiration, aspiration pneumonia and deterioration in respiratory status.ResultsThe search retrieved 1684 studies following duplicate removal. Title and abstract screening identified 70 studies for full text screening and of these, 16 were included in the review for data extraction. Methods of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) included nCPAP (n=6), nCPAP and HFNC (n=5) and HFNC (n=5). A metanalysis was not possible as respiratory modes and cohorts were not comparable. Eleven studies reported on adverse events. Oral feeding safety was predominantly based on retrospective data from chart entries and clinical signs, with only one study using an instrumental swallow evaluation (VFSS) to determine aspiration status.ConclusionsFindings are insufficient to conclude whether commencing oral feeding whilst on nCPAP or HFNC facilitates transition to full oral feeding without adverse effects, including oropharyngeal aspiration. Further research is required to determine the safety and efficacy of oral feeding on CPAP and HFNC for infants and children.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42016039325.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Effects of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Sucking, Swallowing, and Breathing during Bottle-Feeding in Lambs
    Samson, Nathalie
    Nadeau, Charlene
    Vincent, Laurence
    Cantin, Danny
    Praud, Jean-Paul
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2018, 5
  • [42] COMPARISON OF NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE WITH LOW FLOW OXYGEN VERSUS HEATED, HUMIDIFIED HIGH FLOW NASAL CANNULA FOR ORAL FEEDING OF THE PREMATURE INFANT (CHOMP TRIAL): A PILOT STUDY
    Leibel, S. L.
    Castro, M.
    McBride, T.
    Sarmiento, K.
    Hassal, K.
    Shah, V.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE, 2019, 67 (01) : 118 - 119
  • [43] Systematic review and cost-utility of high flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure in children with acute severe or moderate bronchiolitis in Colombia
    Buendia, Jefferson A.
    Feliciano-Alfonso, John E.
    Florez, Ivan D.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, 2022, 57 (12) : 3111 - 3118
  • [44] FEEDING BABIES ON NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE
    不详
    [J]. ADVANCES IN NEONATAL CARE, 2015, 15 (01) : 4 - 5
  • [45] High-flow nasal cannula compared with continuous positive airway pressure: a bench and physiological study
    Vieira, Fernando
    Bezerra, Frank Silva
    Coudroy, Remi
    Schreiber, Annia
    Telias, Irene
    Dubo, Sebastian
    Cavalot, Giulia
    Pereira, Sergio Martins
    Piraino, Thomas
    Brochard, Laurent Jean
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY, 2022, 132 (06) : 1580 - 1590
  • [46] Comparing Usefulness of Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HHFNC) and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP) for Neonatal Respiratory Diseases in Preterm Infants
    B M Choi
    E H Lee
    K H Park
    B H Chung
    H J Park
    Y O Choi
    Y S Hong
    [J]. Pediatric Research, 2011, 70 : 504 - 504
  • [47] COMPARING HUMIDIFIED HIGH FLOW NASAL CANNULA (HHFNC) VERSUS NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE (NCPAP) AS RESPIRATORY SUPPORTS AFTER EXTUBATION IN PRETERM INFANTS
    Lee, E. H.
    Choi, B. M.
    Park, K. H.
    Park, C.
    Park, H. J.
    Hwang, M. J.
    Hong, Y. S.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2011, 70 : 523 - 523
  • [48] Interest of High Flow Nasal Cannula versus nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure during the management of severe bronchiolitis in infants: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
    Milesi, C.
    Essouri, S.
    Pouyau, R.
    Liet, J. M.
    Afanetti, M.
    Baleine, J.
    Durand, S.
    Cambonie, G.
    Breinig, S.
    Javouhey, E.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2016, 175 (11) : 1436 - 1436
  • [49] Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure as Primary Mode of Respiratory Support for Respiratory Distress in Preterm Infants
    Hegde, Deeparaj
    Mondkar, Jayashree
    Panchal, Harshad
    Manerkar, Swati
    Jasani, Bonny
    Kabra, Nandkishor
    [J]. INDIAN PEDIATRICS, 2016, 53 (02) : 129 - 133
  • [50] COMPARING USEFULNESS OF HUMIDIFIED HIGH-FLOW NASAL CANNULA (HHFNC) AND NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE (NCPAP) FOR NEONATAL RESPIRATORY DISEASES IN PRETERM INFANTS
    Choi, B. M.
    Lee, E. H.
    Park, K. H.
    Chung, B. H.
    Park, H. J.
    Choi, Y. O.
    Hong, Y. S.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2011, 70 : 504 - 504