Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1/1997
Title: Cost-Effectiveness of Nasal High Flow Versus CPAP for Newborn Infants in Special-Care Nurseries
Authors: Buckmaster, Adam ;Huang, L.;Manley, B.J.;Arnolda, G.R.B.;Owen, L.S.;Wright, I.M.R.;Foster, J.P.;Davis, P.G.;Dalziel, K.M.
Affliation: Central Coast Local Health District
The University of Newcastle
Issue Date: Aug-2021
Source: 148(2):e2020020438
Journal title: Pediatrics
Department: Paediatrics
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Treating respiratory distress in newborns is expensive. We compared the cost-effectiveness of 2 common noninvasive therapies, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and nasal high-flow (nHF), for newborn infants cared for in nontertiary special care nurseries. METHODS: The economic evaluation was planned alongside a randomized control trial conducted in 9 Australian special care nurseries. Costs were considered from a hospital perspective until infants were 12 months of age. A total of 754 infants with respiratory distress, born ≥31 weeks' gestation and with birth weight ≥1200 g, <24 hours old, requiring noninvasive respiratory support and/or supplemental oxygen for >1 hour were recruited during 2015-2017. Inpatient costing records were obtained for 753 infants, of whom 676 were included in the per-protocol analysis. Two scenarios were considered: (1) CPAP versus nHF, with infants in the nHF group having "rescue" CPAP backup available (trial scenario); and (2) CPAP versus nHF, as sole primary support (hypothetical scenario). Effectiveness outcomes were rate of endotracheal intubation and transfer to a tertiary-level NICU. RESULTS: As sole primary support, CPAP is more effective and on average cheaper, and thus is superior. However, nHF with back-up CPAP produced equivalent cost and effectiveness results, and there is no reason to make a decision between the 2 treatments on the basis of the cost or effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Nontertiary special care nurseries choosing to use only 1 of the modes should choose CPAP. In units with both modes available, using nHF as first-line therapy may be acceptable if there is back-up CPAP.
URI: https://elibrary.cclhd.health.nsw.gov.au/cclhdjspui/handle/1/1997
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-020438
Pubmed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34272343/
ISSN: 0031-4005
Publicaton type: Journal Article
Keywords: Paediatrics
Pediatrics
Newborn and Infant
Respiratory
Appears in Collections:Obstetrics / Paediatrics

Show full item record

Page view(s)

6
checked on Feb 1, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.