Early high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in paediatric acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a cost analysis following a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the total direct healthcare costs of nasal high flow (NHF) therapy and standard oxygen therapy (SOT) as first-line treatments for paediatric acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and to identify what factors explain variations in these costs. DESIGN: Cost analysis following a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 14 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. PATIENTS: 1517 children aged 1-4 years admitted with AHRF between 18 December 2017 and 18 March 2020, enrolled in the Paediatric Acute Respiratory Intervention Study 2(PARIS-2) trial. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive either NHF or SOT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total and average cost per patient admission for the two first-line treatments of AHRF. RESULTS: The total cost of treating the trial cohort was $A10 788 793 (US$7 660 143; €6 689 052; £6 041 724), corresponding to an average of $A7112 (US$5050; €4409; £3983) per patient. Average cost per patient admission was significantly higher in the NHF group at $A7815 (US$5549; €4845; £4376) compared with the SOT group at $A6419 (US$4557; €3980; £3595), with a mean difference of $A1396 (US$991; €866; £782, 95% CI $A419 to $A2372). Subgroup analyses showed that NHF non-responders, particularly those presenting with wheeze, incurred greater costs due to higher likelihood of intensive care admission and longer hospital stays. CONCLUSION: NHF costs more than SOT and does not lead to better clinical outcomes. Although NHF remains an important respiratory support modality for paediatric AHRF, its higher costs, particularly among those not responding to NHF, emphasise the need for more targeted use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618000210279.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Archives of Disease in Childhood
Published
2026-07-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2025-329705
Primary Topic
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Early high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in paediatric acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a cost analysis following a randomised controlled trial

Trang Pham, Brenda Gannon, Meredith Louise Borland, Mark Wildman et al.
Archives of Disease in Childhood
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
article

Early high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in paediatric acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a cost analysis following a randomised controlled trial

Trang Pham, Brenda Gannon, Meredith Louise Borland, Mark Wildman, Linh K. Vo, Deborah Shellshear, Tobias Hoeppner, Simon S. Craig, Donna Franklin, Hamish McCay, Franz E Babl, Andreas Schibler, Vinh Vo, Shane George, Alexandra Wallace, Stuart Dalziel, Joerg Mattes, Jason Acworth, Jocelyn Neutze
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the total direct healthcare costs of nasal high flow (NHF) therapy and standard oxygen therapy (SOT) as first-line treatments for paediatric acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and to identify what factors explain variations in these costs. DESIGN: Cost analysis following a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 14 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. PATIENTS: 1517 children aged 1-4 years admitted with AHRF between 18 December 2017 and 18 March 2020, enrolled in the Paediatric Acute Respiratory Intervention Study 2(PARIS-2) trial. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive either NHF or SOT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total and average cost per patient admission for the two first-line treatments of AHRF. RESULTS: The total cost of treating the trial cohort was $A10 788 793 (US$7 660 143; €6 689 052; £6 041 724), corresponding to an average of $A7112 (US$5050; €4409; £3983) per patient. Average cost per patient admission was significantly higher in the NHF group at $A7815 (US$5549; €4845; £4376) compared with the SOT group at $A6419 (US$4557; €3980; £3595), with a mean difference of $A1396 (US$991; €866; £782, 95% CI $A419 to $A2372). Subgroup analyses showed that NHF non-responders, particularly those presenting with wheeze, incurred greater costs due to higher likelihood of intensive care admission and longer hospital stays. CONCLUSION: NHF costs more than SOT and does not lead to better clinical outcomes. Although NHF remains an important respiratory support modality for paediatric AHRF, its higher costs, particularly among those not responding to NHF, emphasise the need for more targeted use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618000210279.

Archives of Disease in Childhood
Griffith University (AU), Royal Children's Hospital (AU), University of Auckland (NZ), The University of Queensland (AU), The University of Western Australia (AU), Morton Hospital (US), Gold Coast Hospital (AU), Princess Margaret Hospital for Children (AU), Townsville Hospital (AU), Waikato Hospital (NZ), Health First (US), Monash Health (AU), John Hunter Children's Hospital (AU), Starship Children's Health (NZ), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU), Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service (AU), Monash University (AU), University of Newcastle Australia (AU), James Cook University (AU)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.