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
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
AbstractBackgroundNasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and High‐Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) have emerged as alternatives to orotracheal intubation and conventional invasive ventilation in patients with moderate to severe bronchiolitis. This study aims to evaluate the evidence and the cost‐utility of HFNC compared to CPAP in infants with moderate‐severe bronchiolitis in Colombia.MethodsThe search includes electronic databases such as Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Embase. Through inclusion and exclusion criteria, screen randomized controlled trials. A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost‐utility of CPAP compared with HFNC in infants with moderate‐severe bronchiolitis. Sensitivity analysis of transition probabilities, utilities, and cost was carried out.ResultsIncorporate five studies that meet the criteria. The risk of intubation rate in the patients with CPAP is lower than HFNC (relative risk 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.46−0.84; I2 = 0%) The base‐case analysis showed that compared with HFNC, CPAP was associated with lower costs and higher quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). The expected annual cost per patient with CPAP was US$17,574 and with HFNC was US$29,421. The QALYs per person estimated with CPAP were 0.92 and with HFNC was 0.91. This position of absolute dominance of CPAP (CPAP has lower costs and higher QALYs than HFNI) makes it unnecessary to estimate the incremental cost‐utility ratio.ConclusionsCPAP is cost‐effective, over the HFNC, in infants with severe‐moderate bronchiolitis in Colombia. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision‐makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other countries.
