Pediatric anesthesia & critical care
Cost-effectiveness of high flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care
Authors' conclusion
HFNC compared to CPAP as non-invasive respiratory support for critically-ill children in paediatric critical care units reduces mean costs and is relatively cost-effective overall and for key subgroups, although there is considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding this result.
Study context
- Population
- Acutely ill (step-up RCT) and extubated (step-down RCT) children in paediatric critical care units
- Comparison
- HFNC vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support
- Primary endpoint
- Cost-effectiveness (incremental costs, QALYs and net benefit) of HFNC vs CPAP
- Follow-up
- Up to six months
Methodological detailstwo randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (step-up and step-down), regression methods, pre-specified subgroups
- Two RCTs (step-up and step-down)
- Regression methods
- Pre-specified subgroups
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Incremental net benefit and incremental cost of HFNC vs CPAP · 6 months
Incremental net benefit
£4388
95% CI - £2551 to £11,327
step-down RCT
Incremental net benefit
£5628
95% CI - £8 to £11,264
step-up RCT
- Incremental cost at 6 months, step-down RCT
- - £4565 (95% CI - £11,499 to £2368)
- Incremental cost at 6 months, step-up RCT
- - £5702 (95% CI - £11,328 to - £75)
Further findings
Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses
- Results similar across most pre-specified subgroups; base case robust to alternative assumptions
Original publication
Cost-effectiveness of high flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care. Crit Care. Published 25 November 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →