Interest of High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Versus Non Invasive Ventilation During the Initial Management of Severe Bronchiolitis in Infants (TRAMONTANE)

May 26, 2015 updated by: University Hospital, Montpellier
  1. The purpose of the study is to evaluate prospectively the clinical benefits of High flow nasal canula (HFNC: 2l/kg/min) versus nasal CPAP( continuous positive airway pressure) (n-CPAP: 7 cmH2O) in the initial management of bronchiolitis in infants.
  2. Design: non-inferiority study, prospective, controlled, randomized, multi-center.
  3. Design: Infants less than 6 month admitted in pediatric intensive care unit for respiratory distress (mWCAS >3) secondary to bronchiolitis but not requiring mechanical ventilation will be randomized in two groups: "n-CPAP"(nasal continuous positive airway pressure) or "HFNC" during 24 hours.
  4. Conditions of measurements:

    Primary endpoint: Proportion of failure in both arms during the first 24 hours. Failure criteria: A raise of the Clinical score for respiratory distress (mWCAS) (1 point) or respiratory rate (10/min /H0 and above 60/min) or discomfort (EDIN) (1point /H0 and above 4) or apnea.

    Secondary outcomes: Assessment at H1, H12, H24 of mWCAS, respiratory and heart rate, EDIN score, skin lesions, FiO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen

    ) required to achieve an oxygen saturation between 94 and 97%, transcutaneous PCO2 (carbon dioxide partial pressure) (correlated to an initial gas analysis), Report SpO2 / FiO2

  5. Statistic: Intention to treat Analysis. Expected number of patients: 71 per arm: 142 children.
  6. Study Schedule: October 2014-April 2016

Study Overview

Status

Unknown

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

142

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

      • Montpellier, France, 34395
        • Recruiting
        • University Hospital of Montpellier

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

3 years to 2 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • age<6months
  • bronchiolitis
  • mWCAS > or=3
  • hospitalisation in pediatric intensive care unit
  • signed consent form (2 parents)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Intubated patient
  • Neurological or cardiac disease

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: HFNC treatment
HFNC : High flow nasal canula 24hours Patients will be treated by a High flow nasal canula (HFNC: 2l/kg/min) for the initial management of their bronchiolitis (24 hours)
Hygh flow nasal canula HFNC
Active Comparator: nCPAP treatment
nCPAP : nasal NCPAP Patients will be treated by a nasal CPAP (n-CPAP: 7 cmH2O) for the initial management of their bronchiolitis (24 hours)
nasal nCPAP

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Proportion of failure
Time Frame: 24 hours
Proportion of failure in both arms during the first 24 hours. A raise of the Clinical score for respiratory distress (mWCAS) (1 point) or respiratory rate (10/min /H0 and above 60/min) or discomfort (EDIN) (1point /H0 and above 4) or apnea.
24 hours

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
number of participants with an aggravation of the clinical score for respiratory distress arms
Time Frame: 1hour
comparison of the clinical score for respiratory distress (mWCAS) in both arms
1hour
number of participants with an aggravation of the clinical score for respiratory distress arms
Time Frame: 12hours
comparison of the clinical score for respiratory distress (mWCAS) in both arms
12hours
number of participants with an increase of the clinical score for respiratory distress arms
Time Frame: 1 hour
Assessment of Report Sp02/Fi02in both arms
1 hour
Comparison of the Report Sp02/Fi02 in both arms
Time Frame: 1 hour
Assessment of Report Sp02/Fi02in both arms
1 hour
Comparison of the Report Sp02/Fi02 in both arms
Time Frame: 12 hours
Assessment of Report Sp02/Fi02in both arms
12 hours
Comparison of the Report Sp02/Fi02 in both arms
Time Frame: 24 hours
Assessment of Report Sp02/Fi02in both arms
24 hours
number of participants with skin lesions in both arms
Time Frame: 1 hour
number of participants with skin lesions in both arms and classification of the lesions with the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP)
1 hour
number of participants with skin lesions in both arms
Time Frame: 12 hours
number of participants with skin lesions in both arms and classification of the lesions with the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP)
12 hours
number of participants with skin lesions in both arms
Time Frame: 24 hours
number of participants with skin lesions in both arms and classification of the lesions with the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP)
24 hours
number of participants with Discomfort in both arms
Time Frame: 1 hour
Assessment of the discomfort in both arms with the score of EDIN
1 hour
number of participants with Discomfort in both arms
Time Frame: 12 hours
Assessment of the discomfort in both arms with the score of EDIN
12 hours
number of participants with Discomfort in both arms
Time Frame: 24 hours
Assessment of the discomfort in both arms with the score of EDIN
24 hours

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

October 1, 2014

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

April 1, 2016

Study Completion (Anticipated)

November 1, 2016

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 27, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 26, 2015

First Posted (Estimate)

May 29, 2015

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

May 29, 2015

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 26, 2015

Last Verified

May 1, 2015

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 9433

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Bronchiolitis

Clinical Trials on HFNC

Search Similar Trials