Cite this article as:
Laura Riddick, Damian Roland and Andrew Tagg. COVID and RSV, Don't Forget the Bubbles, 2021. Available at:

There was a time, perhaps a century ago, when the only virus we really worried about was RSV. Children, snot dripping from their noses, would come in coughing, and struggling to breath and, as days grew shorter and nights grew longer we knew that bronchiolitis season was upon us once more.

But things have changed. We worry about a different virus now and there is plenty of evidence to show that the usual seasonal variations in RSV have flattened. It was heartening to see the data showing that the mid-winter peak was no more as we kept ourselves to ourselves. Non-pharmacological interventions – physical distancing, respiratory hygiene and restricted movements – meant that the scourge of the paediatric emergemcy department was held at bay. Until…

Half a world away…

Bronchiolitis presentations peaks in June – July in Australia (remember it is our winter in the Southern hemisphere). Last season there was a 98% reduction in RSV (and a 99.4% reduction in cases of influenza (Yeoh et al., 2020). But let’s take a look at the surveillance data from Western Australia to see what has been going on of late.

Western Australia RSV incidence- Based on Foley et al. 2021

McNab et al. (2021) looked to see what had been going on in Victoria, a state that had much stricter lockdown measures than WA. Whilst there was clear suppression of the winter cases of bronchiolitis, these began to increase by the beginning of the year, coinciding with the return to school after the long Christmas break Normally, in February, the Royal Children’s Hospital would return 5.6% positive RSV swabs. In 2021, they returned 32.8%. More worryingly, this peak is higher than the pre-COVID winter peak (30.4%)

RSV incidence in Victoria
Victorian Australia RSV incidence- Based on McNab et al. 2021

But this snapshot doesn’t give you the whole picture. Let’s just slide the data along a few short weeks…

Victorian Australia RSV incidence- Based on McNab et al. 2021

These data have been echoed all over Australia and New Zealand with a ramping up of out of season RSV positive cases. What is most concerning is that numbers appear to be higher than the usual peak and the patients older (mean 18.2 months compared to 7.3 – 12.5 months). Why could this be? It could be, as Foley et al. (2021) suggests due to an increase in RSV-naïve babies born during that first wave coupled with waning herd immunity.

What does this mean for paediatricians in the Northern hemisphere who are about to face this surge in cases?

Getting started?

Paediatricians at the frontline need to be able to see what is going on and so PERUKI will shortly be launching BronchSTART. The aim of this prospective observational study is to both track the potential surge so that health policy is informed as much as possible but also to describe its epidemiology. As highlighted above the data suggests a potentially wider age range and steeper spike but these are from retrospective studies By reporting potential cases (in children under two years of age) presenting to over 50 Emergency Department across the UK, in real-time, clinicians and researchers will be able to really understand the impact and outcomes of this respiratory disease.

Given the challenges of identifying and managing children who may have RSV, COVID-19, or both, some guidelines have been produced by the RCPCH.

What do the guidelines say?

The RCPCH guidelines focus on THREE key areas:-

  • Reducing hospital attendances with mild cases
  • Pathways and guidance for testing and cohorting
  • Minimising patient time on High flow and reducing the exposures to AGPs

The guidelines are designed to reduce potential unnecessary referrals from primary care to the emergency department. Hopefully, reducing the number of children presenting (and then mixing with each other in the waiting room) will lessen the burden on paediatric emergency departments. It offers a traffic light system for reviewing patients, with suggestions of how to manage some borderline cases in the community with secondary care input.

NHS bronchiolitis pathway

When it comes to testing, the aim is to be able to minimise the spread of COVID-19 and protect clinically vulnerable children.  As with what is happening in most hospitals, the recommendation is to only test patients being admitted to the hospital. Any further testing is then influenced by the patient’s condition and the prevalence of COVID in the hospital, as well as cubicle availability.  

Using Point-of-Care-Testing (POCT)/rapid testing for patients going to PICU and HDU may limit cubicle occupancy, and improve cohorting of patients. Additional COVID testing then should be considered in cases where respiratory panels are negative (or suggest low-risk causative organisms such as bocavirus or rhinovirus). Additional testing should also be considered if aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) are required or parents are displaying symptoms. 

Given that AGPs provide a high risk for transmission, the recommendation is for rapid but weaning of high-flow with guidance provided by north and south Thames retrieval service protocol used.

For those of us in clinical practice, the guidelines remain largely unchanged. Non-pharmacological measures- physical distancing, good respiratory hygiene and use of appropriate PPE are key. Cohorting patients into red and blue, hot and cold or low/high-risk zones may add some value unless physical distancing can be maintained.

As case numbers rise, and cubicle capacity becomes an issue then departments need to come up with a risk mitigation strategy to protect the vulnerable.

  • Weekly testing for all prolonged stays 
  • Test if there are new symptoms 
  • More emphasis on risk assessment for use of RPEs (respiratory protective equipment) 
  • If single room capacity is exceeded, patient may be risk assessed for cohorting 
  • If respiratory virus +ve and COVID –ve patients can be cohorted even if requiring an AGP  
  • We still need to advise those DC’d from CAT/ED with respiratory symptoms of the need for COVID testing via track and trace
  • Parents should not be in hospital if symptomatic. Do not test asymptomatic parents
COVID and RSV flow chart

Bottom line

  • Support community services to reduce strain on hospital services
  • Use testing to help cohort and plan patient care
  • Wean or reduce AGPs where safe to do so
Infographic depicting RSV and COVID guidelines

Selected references

Foley, D.A., Yeoh, D.K., Minney-Smith, C.A., Martin, A.C., Mace, A.O., Sikazwe, C.T., Le, H., Levy, A., Moore, H.C. and Blyth, C.C., 2021. The Interseasonal Resurgence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Australian Children Following the Reduction of Coronavirus Disease 2019–Related Public Health Measures. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Huang QS, Wood T, Jelley L, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on influenza and other respiratory viral infections in New Zealand. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1001.

McNab, S., Do, L.A.H., Clifford, V., Crawford, N.W., Daley, A., Mulholland, K., Cheng, D., South, M., Waller, G., Barr, I. and Wurzel, D., 2021. Changing Epidemiology of Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Australia-delayed re-emergence in Victoria compared to WA/NSW after prolonged lock-down for COVID-19. Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Oh, D.Y., Buda, S., Biere, B., Reiche, J., Schlosser, F., Duwe, S., Wedde, M., von Kleist, M., Mielke, M., Wolff, T. and Dürrwald, R., 2021. Trends in respiratory virus circulation following COVID-19-targeted nonpharmaceutical interventions in Germany, January-September 2020: Analysis of national surveillance data. The Lancet Regional Health-Europe6, p.100112.

Public Health England. Weekly national Influenza and COVID19 surveillance report: Week 49 report (up to week 48 data) 3 December 2020. Accessed July 20, 2021.

Tang, J.W., Bialasiewicz, S., Dwyer, D.E., Dilcher, M., Tellier, R., Taylor, J., Hua, H., Jennings, L., Kok, J., Levy, A. and Smith, D., 2021. Where have all the viruses gone? Disappearance of seasonal respiratory viruses during the COVID-19 pandemic. _Journal of Medical Virology

Waterlow, N.R., Flasche, S., Minter, A. and Eggo, R.M., 2021. Competition between RSV and influenza: Limits of modelling inference from surveillance data. Epidemics35, p.100460.

Williams, T.C., Lyttle, M.D., Cunningham, S., Sinha, I., Swann, O.V., Maxwell-Hodkinson, A. and Roland, D., 2021. Study Pre-protocol for “BronchStart-The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Timing, Age and Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Emergency Presentations; a Multi-Centre Prospective Observational Cohort Study”. Wellcome Open Research, 6(120), p.120.

Yeoh DK, Foley DA, Minney-Smith CA, et al. The impact of COVID-19 public health measures on detections of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in children during the 2020 Australian winter. Clin Infect Dis 2020.

Following bronchiolitis guidelines

Cite this article as:
Ben Lawton. Following bronchiolitis guidelines, Don't Forget the Bubbles, 2021. Available at:

In 2016 our friends at PREDICT produced a robust, evidence-based guideline for the management of bronchiolitis. They assembled a diverse team of experts, decided on the key questions we ask ourselves when managing babies with bronchiolitis and then did a deep dive of the literature to provide answers to those questions. You can read the guideline here, or the DFTB summary here but the key messages will be familiar to regular readers of DFTB. The list of things that do not help babies under 12 months with bronchiolitis includes salbutamol, chest x-rays, antibiotics, nebulised adrenaline and steroids. In the real world, however, these ineffective treatments continue to be used – so what can we do about that? 

The authors of a new PREDICT study released in JAMA Pediatrics on 12 April 2021 sought to demonstrate whether a group of interventions they developed using theories of behaviour change would be effective in reducing the number of ineffective interventions given to bronchiolitic babies. 

Haskell L, Tavender EJ, Wilson CL, et al. Effectiveness of Targeted Interventions on Treatment of Infants With Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online April 12, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0295

Who did they study? 

This was an international multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving 26 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. It is described as a “cluster” RCT as randomisation was by hospital rather than by patient. The randomisation was a bit complicated. It was stratified to make sure secondary and tertiary hospitals from each country were represented in each group. Baseline data was collected from 8003 patient records from the three bronchiolitis seasons prior to the start of the intervention period. A further 3727 charts analysed from the season in which the intervention took place. The data from the three prior seasons were used to ensure baseline similarity between groups and to establish patterns of practice change that were already occurring. In short, this was a big study that ensured representation of both specialist children’s hospitals and mixed general hospitals. 

What did they do? 

Hospitals randomised to the intervention group received a package of interventions based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), developed following an earlier qualitative study that investigated why we do what we do when managing bronchiolitis infants. The TDF is one of the most commonly used frameworks in implementation science and is considered particularly good at identifying interventions to address barriers and facilitators that influence behaviour change. The package included:

  • Appointing clinical leads from medical and nursing streams in both emergency departments and inpatient paediatric units.
  • The study team meeting with those clinical leads to explore the local practice and any anticipated barriers to change.
  • A one day train-the trainer workshop to ensure clinical leads were comfortable using the educational materials provided to train local staff.
  • An education pack including a PowerPoint with scripted messages specifically designed to promote change, a clinician training video, evidence fact sheets, promotional materials and parent/caregiver information sheets.
  • Monthly audits of the first 20 bronchiolitis patients with the results shared and compared to the best performing hospital.

What about the control group?

Hospitals randomised to the control group were just left to their own devices for the year of the intervention period. They had access to the guidelines and were welcome to share that information as they would in any other circumstances. The intervention package was made available to control hospitals in the season following the study period. 

What did they show? 

The primary outcome was the proportion of infants who complied with all five of the Australasian Bronchiolitis Guideline recommendations known to have no benefit (chest x-ray, salbutamol, steroids, adrenaline, antibiotics). There was an 85.1% compliance rate in the intervention group compared to a 73% compliance rate in the control group. In other words, in hospitals that were part of the intervention group, an average of 85.1% of kids received care in line with the guidelines, compared to only 73% receiving guideline compliant care in control hospitals. This was a significant difference.

Secondary outcomes showed improvement was consistent in both the ED and inpatient phases of care. Unsurprisingly, there was no difference in hospital length of stay or admission rates to ICU. 

The DFTB verdict

On the surface this is a robust, well designed study showing that if we put some thought and some resources into supporting our colleagues in doing the right thing then babies with bronchiolitis will get better care in our hospitals. They won’t leave hospital any quicker and they won’t have a lesser chance of needing ICU but they will be exposed to fewer interventions that will not do them any good and may do them some harm. Dig a little deeper though and the big messages in this paper go way beyond the management of bronchiolitis. The implementation science based interventions used in this study can be adapted to anything, and though they have been shown to be effective in getting us to do the right thing here, we haven’t shown that their efficiency has been optimised yet. Great breakthroughs in novel medical science are exciting but there are huge improvements in care to be gained through getting the best care that we do know about to every patient every time. This paper should serve as fuel for the fires lighting implementation science’s journey from the shadows to the centre stage of improvement in clinical care. 

From the authors

The study’s senior author, Prof Stuart Dalziel gave DFTB the following take: 

“The key finding is that we can do better. By using targeted interventions, based on established behaviour change theories and developed from work looking at why clinicians manage patients with bronchiolitis the way they do, we can improve the management of patients with bronchiolitis such that it is more consistent with evidence based guidelines.

In the field of implementation science (IS) and knowledge translation (KT) a 14% improvement in care is a large change.

Changing clinician behaviour is complicated, this is especially so for de-implementation of medical interventions. Many factors influence clinician behaviour and it is thus perhaps naïve to think that a single intervention can cause a significant change to behaviour. For a number of decades the majority of clinical guidelines for bronchiolitis have emphasised that chest x-ray, antibiotics, epinephrine, corticosteroids and salbutamol are low-value care and not evidence based. Yet despite this consistent messaging from guidelines the use of these interventions has remained considerably higher than what it should be. While the interventions delivered in our study were not unique (site based clinical leads, stake holder meetings, train-the-trainer workshops, targeted clinical education, educational material, and audit and feedback) they were specifically developed, using an established framework for behavioural change, following a qualitative study that determined why clinicians managed bronchiolitis they way they do. This prior study, addressing the barriers and enablers to evidence based care, and the subsequent step wise approach to developing the targeted interventions that we used was critical in achieving the change in clinician behaviour observed in our randomised controlled trial”.

The study’s lead author, Libby Haskell, stated:

“Bronchiolitis is the most common reason for children less than one year of age to be admitted to hospital. We can improve the care of these infants, such that they are receiving less low-value care. In order to de-implement low-value care we need to first understand barriers and enablers of care, and then develop targeted interventions, built on robust behavioural change models, to address these. This approach can be used to improve care for other high volume conditions where we see considerable clinical variation in care and with clearly established clinical guidelines on appropriate management.”

Let us know what you think in the comments below 

High flow therapy – when and how?

Cite this article as:
Padmanabhan Ramnarayan. High flow therapy – when and how?, Don't Forget the Bubbles, 2021. Available at:

Isn’t nasal high flow just a fancy name for plain old high flow oxygen? Or is it CPAP-lite? For a therapy that has become so popular in less than a decade, amazingly, there is more opinion sloshing around than proper scientific evidence…

OK, back up, what is Nasal High Flow therapy?

Nasal high flow therapy (NHF), aka high flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC), is a non-invasive mode of respiratory support, involving the delivery of heated (to 37° C) and humidified (to nearly 100% relative humidity) gas (oxygen and/or medical air) through nasal cannulae at high gas flow rates. What is a “high” gas flow rate is still not uniformly defined (some studies say >2 L/min and others >4 L/min). In physiological terms, to provide the true benefits of “high flow”, the gas flow rate should exceed the patient’s maximal peak inspiratory flow rate (roughly 8-10 x normal minute ventilation).

Makes sense, but what is a child’s peak inspiratory flow rate?

Short answer – it changes according to the age and the extent of respiratory distress. For example, a 4 kg baby breathing at 40 breaths/min and inhaling a tidal volume of 5 ml/kg (=20 ml) would have a minute ventilation of 0.8 L/min and a peak inspiratory flow (PIF) rate of nearly 3 L/min. However, the same infant would have a much higher PIF in respiratory distress. Matching the maximal PIF rate by aiming for roughly 8-10 x normal minute ventilation (in this case, 8-10 x 0.8 L/min = 7-8 L/min) is the key principle of NHF therapy. NB: Magically, the 8 L/min flow rate in this baby is also 2 L/kg/min (more on that later!)

Got it. But when should I start NHF in the ED?

Case 1. A previously healthy 4-month old infant is seen in the emergency department with a two-day history of coryza and poor feeding. On examination, he has mild/moderate subcostal recession and a respiratory rate of 60 bpm. His oxygen saturation in room air is 89%. Would you start nasal high flow?

This baby most likely has mild viral bronchiolitis and the main question is whether to start standard oxygen therapy (SOT) via nasal cannulae or NHF. The most useful clinical outcomes we are interested in are transfer to paediatric intensive care (PICU) and the need for endotracheal intubation.

What does the evidence say?

A recent systematic review (Lin J et al. Arch Dis Child 2019) is an obvious starting point. For the outcome of transfer to PICU, only two RCTs were included (Franklin et al. NEJM, 2018; Kepreotes et al. Lancet 2017). The overall risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.98, 1.72) indicating no significant difference between NHF and SOT, although there was a tendency to favour SOT.

Similarly, only two RCTs were included for the outcome of intubation (Franklin et al. NEJM, 2018; Yang et al. Chinese Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 2017). The overall risk ratio was 1.98 (95% CI 0.60, 6.56), again with no significant difference between NHF and SOT. So, not much joy from the systematic review…

Considering that Franklin et al dominated the systematic review in terms of sample size, it is useful to look at this RCT in a bit more detail, from a PICO point of view as well as the flow of patients through the RCT.

Population: Infants <12 months of age with bronchiolitis and needing supplemental oxygen

Intervention: NHF at 2 L/kg/min

Control: Standard oxygen therapy

Outcome: Escalation of care due to treatment failure (composite outcome)

A few reflections on the outcomes of infants in this RCT: although nearly double the number of infants randomised to SOT “failed treatment” compared to NHF, it is notable that over 75% of infants randomised to SOT did not “fail”; the majority of those who did “fail” SOT were rescued by NHF; and since NHF “failure” automatically led to PICU transfer, in effect, more infants were transferred to PICU in the NHF group than in the SOT group (12% vs 9%). Essentially, this RCT could be considered a trial of ‘immediate’ NHF versus ‘rescue’ NHF, as covered by us here previously.

Bottom line: There is no advantage to starting NHF as first-line therapy in an infant with mild bronchiolitis. A more clinically and cost-effective strategy would be to use NHF as ‘rescue’ therapy when standard oxygen therapy has failed.

Case 2. An ex-prem born at 24 weeks gestation, now 4 months old, is seen in the emergency department with a 24-hour history of coryza and cough. On examination, he has moderate/severe subcostal recession and a respiratory rate of 80 bpm. His oxygen saturation in room air is 85%. Would you start nasal high flow?

This baby is much sicker, with significant past medical history, and most likely has moderate/severe bronchiolitis. Would NHF be more useful as first-line therapy in this infant, where previously nasal CPAP would have been an option – can NHF be used as ‘CPAP-lite’? A really useful clinical outcome to focus on is endotracheal intubation.

What does the evidence say?

Lin et al summarise the evidence in their recent systematic review. For the outcome of intubation, 4 RCTs were included, but the total number of patients included were low (n=264). Intubation rates were identical in the NHF and CPAP groups (5.3%), with a risk ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.35, 2.61). So, there is not much evidence to support the use of NHF compared to CPAP, although quite notably, the rate of adverse events was lower in the NHF group (8% vs 21%).

Bottom line: There is no clinical advantage to starting NHF as first-line therapy in an infant with moderate to severe bronchiolitis to avoid intubation. However, its adverse event profile and tolerability by infants might make NHF more appealing as first-line therapy.

When should I start NHF in the HDU?

Case 3: A 5-year old boy with cerebral palsy and epilepsy is admitted to the paediatric HDU bed with fever, cough and respiratory distress. On examination, he has moderate subcostal and intercostal recession and a respiratory rate of 45 bpm. His oxygen saturation in room air is 88%. Would you start nasal high flow?

In this older child with a complex past medical history, is starting NHF, compared to either standard oxygen or CPAP, beneficial in terms of avoiding the need for endotracheal intubation?

What does the evidence say?

A recent systematic review (Luo J et al. Journal of Pediatrics, 2019) is an obvious starting point. In the comparison of NHF versus SOT, 5 RCTs were included, although 2 were focussed on bronchiolitis (previously covered – Franklin et al and Kepreotes et al). The other 3 RCTs were small (Chisti et al. Lancet, 2015; Ergul et al. Eur J Pediatrics, 2018; Sittikharnka et al. Indian J Crit Care Med 2018) with just 300 patients in total. The overall risk ratio for intubation from these 3 studies alone (calculated specifically for this post) was 0.72 (95% CI 0.38, 1.36). Similarly, in the comparison of NHF versus CPAP, 4 RCTs were included but 2 were in bronchiolitic infants (covered earlier). The other two RCTs (Ramnarayan et al. Crit Care 2018; Chisti et al. Lancet 2015) included just 187 children. The overall risk ratio for intubation based on these two RCTs (calculated for this post) was 2.14 (95% CI 0.93, 4.92) indicating a tendency for a higher intubation rate with NHF in older children.

Bottom line: In an older child, intubation was not less frequent when NHF was used compared to SOT as first line therapy. There was a tendency for NHF to be associated with a higher intubation rate compared to CPAP.

Great – what is the best way to provide NHF?

Starting gas flow rate

Milesi et al showed in physiological studies in infants aged <6 months with bronchiolitis that the work of breathing is reduced considerably when the gas flow rate is set at nearly 2 L/kg/min. In their cohort of 21 infants (mean weight 4.3 kg), the measured work of breathing was lowest at a flow rate of 7 L/min (compared to 1, 4 and 6 L/min). Similarly, in children up to the age of 3 years with pneumonia, work of breathing was reduced by nearly 20% at a flow rate of 1.5 L/kg/min compared to 0.5 L/kg/min (Weiler et al. Journal of Pediatrics 2017). Usual adult flow rates range from 50-60 L/min.

In summary, the optimal gas flow rate does not increase in a linear fashion with increasing age/weight, instead it goes from nearly 2 L/kg/min in infancy to nearly 1 L/kg/min in young adults.

RCTs of different starting flow rates

There have been two RCTs comparing NHF flow rates in bronchiolitis (Yurtseven A et al. Ped Pulm 2019; Milesi et al. Intens Care Med 2018). In the former, 1 L/kg/min (n=88) was compared to 2 L/kg/min (n=80) in infants <24 months with clinical severe bronchiolitis presenting to the emergency department. The primary outcome was ‘treatment failure’ within 24 hours. There was no significant difference in treatment failure between the two flow rates (1 L/kg/min: 11.4%; 2 L/kg/min: 10%). The second RCT compared 2 L/kg/min (n=142) with 3 L/kg/min (n=144) in infants aged <6 months with moderate/severe bronchiolitis. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 48 hours. There was no significant difference in treatment failure between the two groups (2 L/kg/min: 38.7%; 3 L/kg/min: 38.9%).

A useful chart with suggested starting flow rates based on weight is used in the ongoing FIRST ABC clinical trial of NHF versus CPAP.

Nasal cannula size

There are different nasal cannula sizes available based on the manufacturer. The general rule of thumb is that the cannula prongs should be no more than 50% of the diameter of the nostril to avoid inadvertent occlusion of the nasal passages. It is also advisable to start the gas flow rate at a low rate and then increase gradually over 10-15 min to avoid patient discomfort. Pacifiers may be useful in babies to prevent mouth opening.

Weaning NHF

There are no RCTs comparing weaning strategies for NHF. Clinical practice is also highly variable – in a global survey of practice in over 1000 PICU professionals by Kawaguchi et al, 68% weaned the FiO2 first to a threshold value (e.g. 0.40) and then weaned the flow rate gradually, 11% weaned the FiO2 first to a threshold value (e.g. 0.40) and then stopped NHF, and 4% weaned the flow rate alone without weaning the FiO2. The FIRST ABC RCT algorithm for the weaning of NHF provides a weight-based approach to a one-step weaning process and suggested clinical thresholds for weaning and stopping NHF.

The take homes

  • Nasal high flow is a form of non-invasive respiratory support that sits somewhere between standard oxygen therapy and nasal CPAP.
  • In infants with mild bronchiolitis, there is no clinical (or cost) benefit in starting NHF as first-line treatment – rather, NHF is best used as a ‘rescue’ therapy after standard oxygen.
  • In infants with moderate/severe bronchiolitis, NHF may be a useful first-line therapy owing to its ease of use and since it is better tolerated by infants, however there is no clinical benefit compared to nasal CPAP.
  • In older children with respiratory failure, there is little RCT evidence to guide practice – however, there is no clear benefit of starting NHF over and above standard oxygen. NHF may be associated with a higher intubation rate compared to CPAP in older children.
  • There is no RCT evidence to support either 1, 2 or 3 L/kg/min NHF flow rates in infants with bronchiolitis; however, physiological evidence suggests that nearly 2 L/kg/min is associated with reduction in work of breathing. Suitable flow rates in older children approximate 1.5 L/kg/min and in young adults, 1 L/kg/min.
  • There is no RCT evidence to support one way of weaning over another – the most common practice seems to be to reduce FiO2 to below 0.40, followed by a reduction in the NHF flow rate.
  • Ongoing RCTs such as the FIRST ABC trial will help address the question whether NHF is non-inferior to CPAP in critically ill children.

It’s Only Wheeze – Treatment Is Simple, Isn’t It?: Meredith Borland at DFTB19

Cite this article as:
Team DFTB. It’s Only Wheeze – Treatment Is Simple, Isn’t It?: Meredith Borland at DFTB19, Don't Forget the Bubbles, 2020. Available at:

Meredith Borland is a paediatric emergency physician and the Director of Emergency Medicine at Perth Children’s Hospital in Perth, Western Australia. She was a founding member of the PREDICT Executive and is the current chair of PREDICT.

Last year at DFTB18, Meredith continued an ongoing discussion about the use of steroids in wheeze. This year, she took us on a journey through an emergency department visit for a number of children who may or may not receive various interventions. This was a fun, interactive and thought-provoking talk that highlighted some common differences in practice.

#doodlemed on this talk by @char_durand below

This talk was recorded live at DFTB19 in London, England. With the theme of  “The Journey” we wanted to consider the journeys our patients and their families go on, both metaphorical and literal.

If you want our podcasts delivered straight to your listening device then subscribe to our iTunes feed or check out the RSS feed. If you are more a fan of the visual medium then subscribe to our YouTube channel. Please embrace the spirit of FOAMed and spread the word.

Bronchiolitis: Ed Oakley at DFTB19

Cite this article as:
Team DFTB. Bronchiolitis: Ed Oakley at DFTB19, Don't Forget the Bubbles, 2020. Available at:

When a medical student starts their paediatric ED rotation they need to know three key illnesses and that will cover the majority of patients that they see. To round out the ABC trifecta of asthma and crapping (acute gastroenteritis) we have bronchiolitis. At #DFTB19 Ed Oakley from PREDICT gave us the latest.




DoodleMedicine sketch by @char_durand-done live from Australia via the DFTB19 streaming video link!



This talk was recorded live at DFTB19 in London, England. With the theme of  “The Journey” we wanted to consider the journeys our patients and their families go on, both metaphorical and literal. 

If you want our podcasts delivered straight to your listening device then subscribe to our iTunes feed or check out the RSS feed. If you are more a fan of the visual medium then subscribe to our YouTube channel. Please embrace the spirit of FOAMed and spread the word.

iTunes Button


The 39th Bubble Wrap

Cite this article as:
Leo, G. The 39th Bubble Wrap, Don't Forget the Bubbles, 2020. Available at:

With millions upon millions of journal articles being published every year, it is impossible to keep up.  Every month we ask some of our friends from PERUKI (Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland) to point out something that has caught their eye.