Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorValencia Ramos, Juan 
dc.contributor.authorOchoa Sangrador, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorGarcía, María
dc.contributor.authorOyagüez, Pablo
dc.contributor.authorArnaez, Juan
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-27T11:17:16Z
dc.date.available2025-01-27T11:17:16Z
dc.date.issued2022-12
dc.identifier.issn0003-9888
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10259/10046
dc.description.abstractObjective: To test the hypothesis that greater comfort is achieved using a nebuliser integrated into a high-flow nasal cannula (nebulisation system integrated in high-flow nasal cannula (NHF)) than using a jet nebuliser (JN), and to explore differences in analgesia requirement and the possibility of feeding during nebulisation. Design: Randomised cross-over trial. Setting: Paediatric intensive care unit. Patients: Children aged <24 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis between November 2016 and May 2017. Interventions: Nebulisations using NHF and JN. Main outcome measures: COMFORT–Behaviour Scale (CBS) and Numerical Rating Comfort Scale (NRSc) were used to measure comfort, and Numerical Rating Satisfaction Scale (NRSs) was used to assess satisfaction before, during and after nebulisation. Other variables included feeding, analgesia, need for being held and respiratory and heart rates. Results: Thirty-three children with 233 nebulisations were included in the study. The median age was 3.0 (IQR 2–9) months. Comfort and satisfaction were greater with NHF than with JN. The median staff-recorded CBS, NRSc and NRSs scores for NHF versus JN were 13 (IQR 9–15) vs 17 (IQR 13–23), 8 (IQR 7–0) vs 7 (IQR 4–8), and 4 (IQR 3–4) vs 2 (IQR 2–3), respectively; and caregiver-recorded scores were 12 (IQR 10–15) vs 19 (IQR 13–24), 9 (IQR 7–10) vs 4 (IQR 1–6), and 4 (IQR 3–4) vs 2 (IQR 1–3), respectively (p<0.001). Children who received NHF had lower cardiac and respiratory rates, needed to be held less often during therapy and required less analgesia (p<0.001). Conclusion: Nebulisation through NHF appears to be a better alternative to JN in terms of comfort and satisfaction as well as making feeding possible during nebulisation.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was supported by Fundación Ernesto Sánchez Villares (FESV) (01/2017), and Aerogen (Philips) provided nebulisers free of charge. The opinions, results and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent of funding sources. No endorsement by FESV is intended or inferred.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupes
dc.relation.ispartofArchives of Disease in Childhood. 2022, Vol 107, n. 12, p. 1122-1127es
dc.subjectBronchiolitisen
dc.subjectComforten
dc.subjectCOMFORT-Behavior scaleen
dc.subjectFamily-centered careen
dc.subjectPediatric Critical Careen
dc.subject.otherBronquiolitises
dc.subject.otherEnfermedades infecciosas en niñoses
dc.subject.otherCommunicable diseases in childrenen
dc.titleImpact of different nebulisation systems on patient comfort in bronchiolitis: a randomised controlled cross-over trialen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) 2022. No commercial re-useen
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-323161es
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/archdischild-2021-323161
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FESV//01%2F2017/es
dc.identifier.essn1468-2044
dc.journal.titleArchives of Disease in Childhooden
dc.volume.number107es
dc.issue.number12es
dc.page.initial1122es
dc.page.final1127es
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersiones


Arquivos deste item

Thumbnail

Este item aparece na(s) seguinte(s) coleção(s)

Mostrar registro simples