IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i5-6p1125-1133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefits of the humidified low‐flow oxygen therapy in infants with mild–moderate bronchiolitis

Author

Listed:
  • Sonia Lorente Sánchez
  • Rebeca Gimeno
  • Josep‐Maria Losilla
  • Sandra Garzón
  • Jaume Vives

Abstract

Aims and objectives To investigate the clinical benefits of using humidification in low‐flow oxygen therapy. Specific objectives were to investigate via an assessment of the number of nasal lavages whether humidification can help to decrease the nasal mucus viscosity, to determine whether it can relieve feeding difficulties by comparing the weight gain in infants, to ascertain whether it can relieve respiratory distress by assessing the heart and respiratory rates and contribute to improved clinical outcomes, measured by the length of stay and oxygen requirements. Background There is no evidence to support the use of humidification in low‐flow oxygen therapy as a usual clinical practice in the management of bronchiolitis. Design A controlled quasi‐experimental study. Methods A total of 97 infants were included, aged ≤6 months, with bronchiolitis, low‐flow oxygen therapy and bronchodilators nebulised with hypertonic saline 3%. Data from the control group (nonhumidified) were gathered from 2010–2012 (49 infants), and data from the group with humidification from 2012–2014 (48 infants). Linear and Poisson regressions were performed adjusting for relevant characteristics of patients. Results Humidification was shown to be associated with significant reductions in the number of nasal lavages in infants with Sant Joan de Déu Bronchiolitis Scores of BROSJOD≤7, in the heart rate of infants with mixed bronchodilators treatment, and in the length of stay and oxygen requirements of infants with Score BROSJOD≤5. No differences in weight and respiratory rate were found. Conclusions Humidification in low‐flow oxygen therapy is an effective nursing intervention to improve the clinical outcomes of infants with mild–moderate bronchiolitis. Relevance to clinical practice Humidifying the nasal mucosa can help to reduce the need for professional procedures, oxygen requirements and hospitalisation length. Further research into the economic savings involved is recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonia Lorente Sánchez & Rebeca Gimeno & Josep‐Maria Losilla & Sandra Garzón & Jaume Vives, 2018. "Benefits of the humidified low‐flow oxygen therapy in infants with mild–moderate bronchiolitis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1125-1133, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:5-6:p:1125-1133
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14140
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14140?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zunjia Wen & Xin Zhang & Yingfei Liu & Yan Li & Xiaoyan Li & Li Wei, 2019. "Humidified versus nonhumidified low‐flow oxygen therapy in children with Pierre‐Robin syndrome: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(19-20), pages 3522-3528, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:5-6:p:1125-1133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.