A comparison of two interventions for HHHFNC in preterm infants weighing 1,000 to 1,500 g in the recovery period of newborn RDS


Department of Pediatrics, Beheshti Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran


Background: Nasal cannula, beside administering low-flow therapy, showed the capability for the administration of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) through high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Meeting specific physical criteria of 100% relative humidity (RH) and temperature of 37 o C are the basic interventional requirements to administer oxygen for the newborns through a nasal cannula. Recently, two systems, MR850 and PMH7000, received the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to administer heated, humidified HFNC (HHHFNC). These systems are evaluated in this study based on their humidifying and heating capabilities.
Materials and Methods: This study was done as an RCT on newborns weighing 1,000 to 1,500 g recovering from respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) while nCPAP was administered at CDP = 4 cmH 2 O, Fio 2 <30%. Patients were randomized to two groups of 35 receiving HHHFNC after treatment with nCPAP, with one group using MR850 humidifier and the other PMH7000. The patients were compared according to the duration of HHHFNC administration, repeated need for nCPAP respiratory support, the need for invasive ventilation, apnea, chronic lung disease (CLD), nasal trauma, RH, and temperature of the gases.
Results: The average time of support with HHHNFC did not show any significant difference in the two groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in the need for nCPAP, invasive ventilation, apnea, nasal trauma, and CLD. The difference in the levels of average temperature and humidity was significant (P value <0.001).
Conclusion: Although the records of temperature and RH in the PMH7000 system was lower than the records from the MR850 system, no clinical priority was observed for respiratory support with HHHNFC in the two systems.


1. Bhandari V, Finer NN, Ehrenkranz RA, Saha S, Das A, Walsh MC, et al. Synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and neonatal outcomes. Pediatrics 2009;124:517-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
2. Soll RF, Morley CJ. Prophylactic versus selective use of surfsctant in preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;2:CD000510.  Back to cited text no. 2
3. Dani C, Bertini G, Pezzati M, Cecchi A, Caviglioli C, Rubaltelli FF. Early extubation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome among preterm infants <30 weeks gestation. Pediaterics 2004;113:560-3.  Back to cited text no. 3
4. Booth C, Premkumar H, Yannoulis A, Thomson M, Harrison M, Edwards AD. Sustainable use of continuous positive airway pressure in extremely preterm infants during the first week after delivery. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal 2006;91:398-402.  Back to cited text no. 4
5. Davis PG, Morley CJ, Owen LS. Non-invasive respiratory support of preterm neonates with respiratory distress: Continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2009;14:14-20.  Back to cited text no. 5
6. Wiswell TE, Courtney SE. Noninvasive Respiratory Support. In: Goldsmith JP, Karotkin EH, editors. Assisted Ventilation of the Neonate. 5 th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2011. p. 140.  Back to cited text no. 6
7. Dysart K, Miller TL, Wolfson MR, Shaffer TH. Research in high flow therapy: Mechanism of action. Respir Med 2009;103:1400-5.   Back to cited text no. 7
8. Klerk A, Greenspan J, Zukowsky K. Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula. Adv Neonatal Care 2008;8:98-105.  Back to cited text no. 8
9. Mazella M, Bellini C, Calevo MG, Campone F, Massocco D, Mezzano P, et al. A randomized control study comparing the Infant Flow Driver with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal 2001;85:86-90.  Back to cited text no. 9
10. Woodhead DD, Lambert DK, Clark JM, Christensen RD. Comparing two methods of delivering high-flow gas therapy by nasal cannula following endotracheal extubation: A prospective, randomized, masked, crossover trial. J Perinatal 2006;26:481-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
11. Jackson JK, Ford SP, Meinert KA, Leick-Rude MK, Anderson B, Sheehan MB. Standardizing nasal cannula oxygen administration in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatics 2006;118:187-93.  Back to cited text no. 11
12. Allan PF, Hollingsworth MJ, Maniere G, Rakofsky AK, Chung KK, Naworol GA. Airway humidification during high-frequency percussive ventilation. Respir Care 2009;54:350-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
13. Rojas MA, Lozano JM, Rojas MX, Laughan M, Bose CL, Rondon MA, et al. Very early surfactant without mandatory ventilation in premature infants treated with early continuous positive airway pressur: A Randomized Controlled Tria. Pediatrics 2009;123:137-42.  Back to cited text no. 13
14. Waugh JB, Granger WM. An evaluation of 2 new devices for nasal high-flow gas therapy. Respir Care 2004;49:902-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
15. Walsh BK, Petsinger D, Hurd E. Comparison of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) Devices. Respir Care 2006;51:2-5.  Back to cited text no. 15