Despite the absence of clinical safety data, heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) therapy is increasingly being used as an alternative to positive-pressure ventilation in pediatrics. This use of HHFNC is "off label" because the US Food and Drug Administration's approval for these devices was only for air humidification and not as a modality to provide positive distending pressure. For the first time we describe 3 cases who developed serious air leaks related to HHFNC therapy. The first child was a previously healthy 2-month-old male infant with respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis who developed a right pneumothorax on day 5 of his illness at 8 liters per minute (lpm). He subsequently required intubation and ventilation for 14 days. The second case involved an otherwise healthy 16-year-old boy with cerebral palsy who developed pneumomediastinum and died of its complications. He was receiving 20 lpm HHFNC therapy when he developed pneumomediastinum. The third case involved a 22-month-old, previously healthy boy who developed subdural hematoma secondary to abuse. He developed a right pneumothorax while receiving HHFNC at a flow of 6 lpm, requiring chest tube placement. These cases emphasize the need for extreme caution while using HHFNC for the off-label indication of providing positive distending pressure in children, especially at flows higher than the patient's minute ventilation. A more detailed study to specifically look at the serious adverse events related to HHFNC is urgently needed.

No abstract

Background: Flexible bronchoscopy (FB) can be performed under bronchoscopist administered moderate sedation (BAMS) with a midazolam/fentanyl combination or general anesthesia (GA). However, the outcome of BAMS has not been well established in children. Currently, most of the centers prefer FB under GA. Both techniques have their advantages and disadvantages with implications for safety, complications, and diagnostic yield. The primary objective of our study was to evaluate the safety, time efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of FB under BAMS as compared with FB under GA in a similar setting.Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review to compare BAMS versus GA for FB in children. We recruited BAMS children (n = 295) from University of Florida (UF) Health Shands Children's Hospital, and GA children (n = 100) from Penn State Children's Hospital (PSHCH). Both the groups had similar indications, complexities, and procedural environments. Comparisons of various time-intervals including preprocedure time, sedation-induction time, scope time, and post-procedure time among different BAMS versus GA age-groups were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes were the determination of the rates of complications, the dosages of sedative/anesthetic, cost-effectiveness, and sedation patterns under BAMS.Results: FB under BAMS required significantly higher preprocedure times and sedation-induction times (P < 0.001** and P < 0.001** respectively) but shorter scope and post-procedure times compared with the GA group times (P < 0.001** and P < 0.001** respectively). Younger children had a deeper level of sedation for an extended period under BAMS. The costs for the sedation services and the complication rates were lower in the BAMS group compared with the GA group.Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the feasibility of BAMS in children. FB under BAMS had an advantage of lower cost and fewer procedural complications compared with FB under GA. Despite that, the safety of BAMS could not be conclusively established from this retrospective study. Moreover, BAMS can potentially compromise the diagnostic yield because the bronchoscopist is also responsible for monitoring sedation and managing the airway.

No abstract

No abstract