High-flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in children with severe asthma attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ghea Mangkuliguna; Muhammad Ifan Romli; Adrian Djatikusumo; Nicholas Adrianto

doi:10.4266/acc.003744

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Acute Crit Care > Volume 41(1); 2026 > Article

Original Article Pediatrics High-flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in children with severe asthma attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Acute and Critical Care 2026;41(1):148-159.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.003744
Published online: October 24, 2025

Ghea Mangkuliguna¹

, Muhammad Ifan Romli²

, Adrian Djatikusumo¹

, Nicholas Adrianto¹

¹School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

²Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Sayang Cianjur Regional General Hospital, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

Corresponding author: Ghea Mangkuliguna School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Pluit Raya No. 2, North Jakarta 14440, Indonesia Tel: +62-21-669-3168, Fax: +62-21-66 -0612, Email: mangkuligunaVG1402@yahoo.com

• Received: August 25, 2024 • Revised: July 9, 2025 • Accepted: August 15, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1,619 Views
107 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
KEY MESSAGES
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background
Adjunctive therapies, including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and bilevel positive airway pressure, have been explored to manage severe asthma attacks and avoid invasive ventilation. HFNC has gained interest as a potential alternative. This review evaluated and compared outcomes of HFNC with conventional oxygen therapy or other non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in severe asthma.
Methods
A comprehensive search of PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and gray literature identified studies published between August 25, 2014, and August 25, 2024. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and results were presented in a forest plot. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB-2) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024558656).
Results
Nine studies with 14,606 subjects were included. HFNC showed a trend toward improved pulmonary scores, though not statistically significant (P>0.05). Pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission and need for escalation of support did not significantly differ from standard oxygen therapy or other NIV. HFNC was associated with a modest but significant increase in readmission (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.07–9.24; P=0.04). PICU length of stay was comparable across groups, and mortality among HFNC-treated patients remained <1%. Overall evidence quality was very low to low.
Conclusions
HFNC did not demonstrate superior outcomes over conventional oxygen therapy and other NIV. Evidence remains limited and of low quality, highlighting the need for further high-quality studies.
Key Words: high-flow nasal cannula; meta-analysis; noninvasive ventilation; pediatrics; severe asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a chronic respiratory illness characterized by airway inflammation, leading to bronchoconstriction, increased mucus production, and breathing difficulties [1]. It is one of the most prevalent chronic childhood respiratory disorders, affecting around 9%–14% of the global population and 4%–6% of children and adolescents in Indonesia [2-4]. According to disability-adjusted life years, childhood asthma is a leading cause of morbidity within the 5–14 year age group, ranking among the top 10 contributors to disability burden in this population, especially in low-to-middle income countries [5,6].

Severe acute asthma exacerbation, which typically develops as a result of exposure to an external agent or poor adherence to therapy, is the most prevalent reason for a pediatric emergency department (ED) visit, accounting for nearly 5%–15% of all visits [7,8]. This is a potentially life-threatening disorder that frequently results in admission to a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) [9]. Research on the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations among children in primary care indicates that approximately 0.4% (4 per 1,000) of asthmatic children experience a serious exacerbation annually. Furthermore, children with a prior severe exacerbation have a 25% risk of recurrence within the following year [10,11].

Treatment of severe acute asthma exacerbations in children with β2-agonists, anticholinergics, corticosteroids, and oxygen supplementation may not resolve airway blockage, necessitating adjuvant therapy [12]. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP); or heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be used for respiratory support in children with status asthmaticus in cases of standard treatment failure [13,14]. These modalities are used to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation associated with complications such as pneumothorax, ventilator-related comorbidities, and disrupted cardiopulmonary interactions [15,16].

HFNC has emerged as an alternative respiratory support to non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit. It is widely used to treat acute respiratory failure in newborns, infants, and children [17-19]. HFNC therapy enhances patient comfort and oxygenation through well-established physiological mechanisms. These mechanisms include reducing inspiratory resistance, eliminating dead space within the nasopharyngeal region, and minimizing oxygen dilution [20,21]. The literature supports the safe and effective use of HFNC therapy in managing various pediatric illnesses, including viral bronchiolitis, pneumonia, and even heart failure [22,23].

Despite the growing application of HFNC therapy, strong clinical evidence supporting its use across all clinical settings has yet to be fully established. Additionally, concerns exist regarding the possibility of HFNC delaying initiation of more established and effective ventilation strategies [24,25]. This potential risk necessitates further investigation, particularly in children with severe asthma. One review study provided a brief explanation of the potential benefits of HFNC therapy for severe asthma attacks based on published literature, but results were not quantitatively measured [26]. Therefore, we aimed to summarize the efficacy of HFNC in pediatric severe acute asthma exacerbations based on a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of relevant data. In particular, we compared the clinical outcomes of HFNC therapy to those of standard oxygen therapy or other non-invasive ventilatory support measures such as CPAP and BiPAP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Protocol Registration and Approval

Results are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria [27]. This study synthesized data from electronic databases. Hence, institutional review board approval was not required. The protocol was recorded in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42024558656).

Eligibility Criteria

Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies were considered suitable for inclusion in further analysis. Studies lacking full-text availability were excluded, along with reviews, case reports/series, commentary articles, conference abstracts, and book sections. The study population comprised patients aged 18 years and younger with moderate-to-severe asthma attacks (pulmonary index score 6 or above) refractory to initial standard therapy (inhaled salbutamol and ipratropium bromide, systemic corticosteroids). No restrictions were imposed based on race, socioeconomic status, religion, geographic location, or underlying health conditions. The intervention was use of HFNC for respiratory support compared with standard oxygen therapy or other available NIVs, such as CPAP or BiPAP. Outcomes of interest were improvement of pulmonary score, PICU admission and readmission rates, need for additional respiratory support, and mortality rate.

Search Strategy, Sources, and Study Selection

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and gray literature repositories such as Google Scholar, WorldCat, and clinical trial registries. Articles published from August 25, 2014, to August 25, 2024, were included in the search. Search terms were ("severe asthma" OR "critical asthma" OR "status asthmaticus" OR "asthma exacerbation" OR "asthma attack") AND ("high flow nasal cannula" OR "HFNC") AND ("pediatrics" OR "children" OR "adolescent") along with relevant Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms if applicable. No publication date and language restrictions were applied. Additionally, a snowball search method was employed to identify relevant articles by screening citations of published review articles aligned with the research topic and objectives.

The search process was independently conducted by three authors, followed by article screening using the keywords. Duplicate articles were removed, and the remaining articles were screened based on title and abstract to identify potentially eligible manuscripts. Full-text articles meeting the eligibility criteria underwent a thorough evaluation for data synthesis. Reasons for excluding studies were recorded, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus. All selection procedures were carried out manually by the authors, and this process is summarized in Figure 1.

Data Extraction

Three reviewers independently extracted data from the articles selected during screening. In cases of disagreement, consensus was reached through discussion. Extracted data included (1) first author and publication year; (2) geographical region of the study; (3) study design; (4) sample size; (5) baseline characteristics (age, sex, clinical parameters, blood gas values); (6) diagnosis; (7) setting; and (8) outcomes of interest. All data extraction procedures were conducted manually by the reviewers.

Risk of Bias Assessment and Confidence in Cumulative Evidence

Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB-2) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to determine the quality of the included studies [28,29]. Four researchers independently judged the methodological quality of each study manually, with any discrepancies resolved through consensus. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess confidence in the cumulative evidence [30]. Judgment was based on study limitations, consistency, directness, imprecision, and/or reporting bias. Overall certainty of the evidence was reported as high, moderate, low, or very low quality.

Data Synthesis, Presentation, and Statistical Analysis

Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted, and the results are presented in a forest plot. The studies listed in the forest plot were sorted in alphabetical order. Statistical significance was determined at a threshold of P<0.05. Heterogeneity of included studies was assessed using Cochrane’s Q Test and Higgins I² statistics. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine possible causes of heterogeneity. A funnel plot was used for visual assessment of publication bias. An asymmetric funnel plot indicates the possibility of publication bias. The Begg and Mazumdar Rank Correlation Test and Egger’s Test of the Intercept were also used to assess the presence of publication bias. Any missing data required for the analysis were retrieved by contacting the corresponding author of the article. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of this meta-analysis by excluding studies with a high risk of bias. All statistical tests were performed using Review Manager version 5.4 [31]. When meta-analysis could not be conducted, a narrative synthesis evaluating clinical outcomes reported in the included studies was performed instead. The findings of the included studies are presented in a table, and the studies listed were sorted alphabetically by last name of the first author.

RESULTS

Search Results

After conducting an extensive literature search, 398 studies were identified and screened based on their titles and abstracts. Following this initial screening, 22 studies were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, nine studies were included in the review [13,25,32-38]. The search flowchart and study selection process are shown in Figure 1.

Characteristics of the Included Studies

Nine studies were included in the analysis, two randomized controlled trials and seven cohort studies. Studies were conducted in the United States (four studies), Spain (four studies), and Paraguay (one study) and enrolled children and adolescents aged 18 years or younger with moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbations (pulmonary score >5) that did not respond to initial standard therapy. Most subjects were male. Included studies were conducted in various settings, mainly in the PICU, followed by the ED and inpatient ward. The initial flow rate of HFNC ranged from 0.5–2 L/kg/min to maintain an oxygen saturation of 93% or higher. All except one study with suspicion of bias due to randomization of the process and selection of the reported results were judged to be of good quality. Detailed characteristics of the included studies are provided in Table 1, and bias assessment results are provided in Table 2 and Figure 2.

Meta-analysis

Patients in the HFNC group (48.43%) tended to have greater improvements in pulmonary scores than those receiving standard oxygen therapy, but this difference was not significant (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 0.44–5.27; I²=66%; P=0.50) (Figure 3A). As many as 14.5% of patients using HFNC, either in the ED or pediatric ward, required admission to the PICU. However, we did not find any significant difference in outcomes compared with those treated with standard oxygen therapy (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 0.26–43.52; I²=92%; P=0.36) (Figure 3B). Patients in the HFNC group (3.2%) were more likely to be readmitted to PICU/hospital wards after being discharged (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.07–9.24; I²=0%; P=0.04) (Figure 3C). Typical PICU length of stay for the HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy groups ranged from 2 to 3 days, while those of other NIV groups ranged from 2 to 5 days.

We observed that a subset of patients treated with HFNC (10.5%) required escalation of respiratory support. This effect was not significantly different from that of standard oxygen therapy (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.76–4.19; I²=94%; P=0.19) (Figure 3D) or the NIV method CPAP/BiPAP (OR, 5.98; 95% CI, 0.77–46.23; I²=57%; P=0.09) (Figure 3E). The mortality rate of subjects treated with HFNC was no higher than 1%.

Confidence in the Cumulative Evidence

This meta-analysis included both randomized controlled trials and observational studies, which initially provided low- to high-quality evidence. Most studies were considered to be of good quality, and bias was considered unlikely. We detected substantial heterogeneity in our analysis, except for the readmission rate after discharge. Two analyses showed a wide confidence interval that raised concerns about the precision of the current study. No serious indirectness that could affect the results in their entirety was found. Publication bias could not be evaluated as fewer than 10 studies were included. Hence, the evidence generated from this meta-analysis was judged to be very-low to low, as outlined in Table 3.

DISCUSSION

HFNC has been proposed as an alternative respiratory support in pediatric acute respiratory distress due to its physiological advantages, such as washout of nasopharyngeal dead spaces, reducing inspiratory resistance, improving mucociliary function, reducing metabolic work related to gas conditioning, and providing low-level positive distending pressure [20,21]. In pediatric asthma, these mechanisms theoretically may mitigate bronchospasm, enhance secretion clearance, and improve ventilation-perfusion mismatch. However, these proposed benefits are largely based on extrapolated physiological data or evidence from other respiratory conditions, such as bronchiolitis or pneumonia [17,22].

Our meta-analysis did not show significant improvements in pulmonary scores or PICU admission rates compared to standard oxygen therapy when HFNC therapy was used in pediatric EDs or wards. The pathophysiology of severe asthma includes marked bronchospasm, airway inflammation, mucus impaction, and dynamic hyperinflation, resulting in elevated airway resistance and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) [21,22]. While HFNC delivers warmed, humidified gas with low-level flow-dependent PEEP (typically 2–6 cm H₂O), this is often insufficient to overcome the degree of air trapping and respiratory muscle load seen in severe asthma [20]. Unlike CPAP or BiPAP, HFNC does not offer adjustable inspiratory pressure or ventilatory assistance, limiting its capacity to reduce CO₂ retention and respiratory fatigue [39-41]. These physiological constraints may explain the absence of significant clinical improvement observed in our pooled outcomes, despite the theoretical benefits of HFNC such as improved oxygenation and mucociliary clearance [21,22].

This meta-analysis also demonstrated that HFNC did not significantly reduce the need for escalation to CPAP, BiPAP, or intubation in pediatric asthma patients across ED, ward, and PICU settings. The introduction of HFNC therapy in the pediatric ED decreased the intubation rates for children with acute respiratory failure [42]. Another study reported that implementing HFNC therapy in PICUs was linked to lower intubation rates, with failure rates ranging from 25% to 30% [19,43]. While HFNC is generally well tolerated and simple to administer, these advantages do not inherently translate to clinical efficacy in preventing deterioration. Moreover, clinical predictors such as persistent hypercapnia or lack of respiratory rate improvement have been associated with HFNC failure in children with acute respiratory conditions, including status asthmaticus [44,45]. Subjects from the HFNC group included in the analysis had elevated pCO₂ levels, which might decrease the clinical efficacy of HFNC. We also observed a modest but significant increase in readmission among HFNC-treated patients in the PICU setting. This finding may reflect early reliance on HFNC in patients with more severe presentations or delayed escalation to more effective respiratory support.

Given the established role of CPAP and BiPAP in reducing intubation and improving ventilation in children with status asthmaticus, we compared HFNC directly with these modalities. CPAP and BiPAP offer consistent airway pressure and ventilatory support, which are especially beneficial in patients with high airway resistance and CO₂ retention [14,16]. HFNC, in contrast, provides only passive support and variable pressure delivery [14,16]. Although it may be easier to administer and better tolerated in mild-to-moderate cases, its non-inferiority in severe asthma has not been conclusively demonstrated, as reported in our meta-analysis. Murphy and Kessel [41] reported that, while HFNC did not result in significant improvements in respiratory rate among subjects with status asthmaticus, it remained comparable to BiPAP within the pre-defined non-inferiority limit of 20%. Several studies have compared CPAP and HFNC for both initiating (“step-up”) and weaning (“step-down”) respiratory support. HFNC was shown to be non-inferior to CPAP in the step-up setting, but failed to demonstrate non-inferiority in step-down care, particularly among younger, chronically ill, or sedated children [39,40].

This meta-analysis has several limitations that warrant consideration. First, substantial heterogeneity was observed across outcomes, likely due to variations in study design, patient populations, clinical settings (ED, ward, PICU), and HFNC initiation criteria. Second, imprecision was evident in some analyses, as reflected by wide confidence intervals, partly due to the small sample sizes in certain studies. Additionally, the limited number of randomized controlled trials and the predominance of retrospective observational designs may have introduced bias and limited the strength of causal inference. Finally, as the number of included studies was fewer than 10, formal assessment of publication bias could not be performed. Future high-quality, multicenter trials are needed to better define the role of HFNC in pediatric severe asthma and to strengthen the evidence base. Currently, two registered randomized clinical trials have yet to announce their findings [46,47]. These trials might offer valuable insights in addition to the findings of this meta-analysis.

In our meta-analysis, the physiological advantages offered by HFNC therapy did not translate into significantly improved clinical outcomes in pediatric severe asthma. The absence of consistent, asthma-specific physiological data such as changes in dynamic hyperinflation, CO₂ clearance, or inspiratory effort limited our ability to establish a strong causal link. Further rigorous studies are warranted to delineate specific clinical scenarios where HFNC might offer distinct benefits and to more robustly determine the comparative efficacy of HFNC compared to other NIV options.

KEY MESSAGES

▪ high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy does not exhibit superiority to standard oxygen therapy and other non-invasive ventilation modalities for treating severe asthma attacks.

▪ Future high-quality, multicenter trials are needed to better define the role of HFNC in pediatric severe asthma and to strengthen the evidence base.

NOTES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

FUNDING

None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: GM, MIR. Data curation: GM, MIR, AD, NA. Formal analysis: GM, MIR, AD, NA. Methodology: GM, MIR, AD, NA. Project administration: GM, MIR, AD, NA. Visualization: GM, MIR, AD, NA Writing – original draft: GM, MIR, AD, NA. Writing – review & editing: GM, MIR, AD, NA. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Figure 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart. This diagram summarizes the search strategy and selection process applied to include articles eligible for this meta-analysis.

Figure 2.

Risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Figure 3.

Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for severe asthma attacks. The horizontal line indicates the 95% CI of a study. Squares represent the results of a study. Square size varies according to the weight of a particular study. The diamond at the bottom of the plot represents the pooled analysis of all included studies. The outer edges of the diamond indicate the CIs. (A) Improvement of pulmonary score. (B) Admission to pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). (C) Readmission post-discharge. (D) Escalation of ventilatory support (vs. standard oxygen therapy). (E) Escalation of ventilatory support (vs. other non-invasive ventilation). df: degree of freedom; I²: test of heterogeneity; M-H: Mantel-Haenszel; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; BiPAP: bilevel positive airway pressure.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies

Study	Region	Study design	Group	Sample size	Baseline characteristics				Diagnosis	Setting
Study	Region	Study design	Group	Sample size	Age (yr)	Sex (%)	Clinical parameters	Blood gas values	Diagnosis	Setting
Ballestero et al. (2018) [32]	Spain	Single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	HFNC	30	3.0 (1.7–6.0)	Male, 53	HR, 162.0 (144.7–175.2); RR, 48.0 (40.7–52.5); SpO₂, 98.0 (95.7–99.0) (with O₂therapy); PIS, 6.0 (6.0–7.0)	pH, 7.3 (7.2–7.4); pCO₂, 44.0 (38.7–53.2); pO₂, 4.0 (36.5–92.5)	Moderate to severe asthma exacerbations	ED
Ballestero et al. (2018) [32]	Spain	Single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	Control (standard oxygen therapy)	32	3.0 (2.0–6.0)	Male, 56	HR, 152.5 (139.2–173.0); RR, 48.0 (40.0–60.0); SpO₂, 97.5 (95.0–100.0) (with O₂ therapy); PIS, 6.0 (6.0–6.75)	pH, 7.3 (7.2–7.4); pCO₂, 44.0 (39.7–49.5); pO₂, 43.0 (34.0–48.5)	Moderate to severe asthma exacerbations	ED
Benítez et al. (2019) [33]	Paraguay	Single center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	HFNC	32	5 (2–14)	Male, 31.3	RR, 43.8±10.56; SpO₂, 91 (82–99)	-	Moderate to severe asthma attacks	ED
Benítez et al. (2019) [33]	Paraguay	Single center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	Control (standard oxygen therapy)	33	4 (2–14)	Male, 48.5	RR, 46.3±11.62; SpO₂, 92 (80–98)	-	Moderate to severe asthma attacks	ED
Delgado et al. (2023) [34]	Spain	Prospective study	HFNC	56	29 mo (4–143)	Male, 49	RR, 39 (20–68); SatO₂/FiO₂, 204 (97–384); PIS, 5 (1–7)	pH, 7.37 (7.13–7.49);	Moderate to severe asthma attacks	PICU
								pCO₂, 35 (15.7–67);
								HCO₃, 20.7 (13.5–40)
			HFNC+NIV	14	12.5 mo (4–164)	Male, 54	RR, 43 (24–68); SatO₂/FiO₂, 185 (92–333); PIS, 5 (3‑8)	pH, 7.38 (7.15–7.47);
								pCO₂, 43.5 (32.8–86);
								HCO₃, 21.7 (17.9–32.4)
			NIV	6	14 mo (5–26)	Male, 34	RR, 52 (29–62); SatO₂/FiO₂, 101 (90–271); PIS, 5 (2–7)	pH, 7.41 (7.29–7.49); CO₂, 45.6 (28.1–51); HCO₃, 24.6 (21.7–28.9)
Gates et al. (2021) [13]	United States	Retrospective study	HFNC	104	5 (4–9)	Male, 49	HR, 158±16; RR, 37±0.4; FiO₂, 0.45±0.28; SpO₂, 95±3; admission PIS, 11 (9–12)	-	Critical asthma	PICU
Gates et al. (2021) [13]	United States	Retrospective study	Control (aerosol mask)	67	7 (5–10)	Male, 57	HR, 155±14; RR, 37±0.5; FiO₂, 0.50±0.29; SpO₂, 96±3; admission PIS, 10 (9–12)	-	Critical asthma	PICU
González Martínez et al. (2019) [25]	Spain	Retrospective study	HFNC	40	5 (4–6)	Male, 67.5	HR, 140 (130–146); RR, 45 (38–56);	-	Moderate to severe asthma exacerbation	Pediatric hospital ward
			HFNC	40	5 (4–6)	Male, 67.5	PIS, 7.2 (6–8.7)	-
			Control (no HFNC)	496	5 (4–7)	Male, 63.1	HR, 133 (120–146); RR, 40 (32–48); PIS, 5 (4–6)	-
Pilar et al. (2017) [35]	Spain	Retrospective study	HFNC	20	2.98 (1.52–4.42)	Male, 60	HR, 164 (141–167); RR, 48 (37–57); PCO₂, 48 (41–51.5); FiO₂, 0.6 (0.4–0.83); SpO₂, 98 (96–100)	-	Severe acute asthma exacerbation	PICU
Pilar et al. (2017) [35]	Spain	Retrospective study	NIV	22	3.74 (2.77–6.47)	Male, 77	HR, 146 (136–156); RR, 42 (33–50); PCO₂, 42 (39–47.75); FiO₂, 0.55 (0.35–0.8); SpO₂, 97 (96–99)	-	Severe acute asthma exacerbation	PICU
Rogerson et al. (2023) [36]	United States	Retrospective study	HFNC	1,766	2–18	Male, 57.7	HR: age 2–5, 149 (134–164); age 6–11, 134 (118–148); age 12–18, 120 (100–135)	-	Asthma	PICU
							RR: age 2–5, 38 (30–48); age 6–11, 30 (24–40); age 12–18, 25 (20–32);
							SpO₂, 96 (93–98)
			Control (no HFNC)	1,766		Male, 58.6	HR: age 2–5, 151 (135–163); age 6–11, 135 (121–148); age 12–18, 115 (94–132)	-
							RR: age 2–5, 40 (30–48); age 6–11, 31 (24–40); age 12–18, 22 (18–28);
							SatO₂, 96 (93–98)
Russi et al. (2022) [37]	United States	Single-center, retrospective study	HFNC	13	9.6±3.8	Male, 46	SaO₂, 94.4±3.1	PCO₂, 56 (30–63)	Status asthmaticus	PICU
Russi et al. (2022) [37]	United States	Single-center, retrospective study	BiPAP	26	10.9±3.7	Male, 46	SaO₂, 95.9±4	PCO₂, 52 (36–65)	Status asthmaticus	PICU
Russi et al. (2024) [38]	United States	Multi-center, retrospective study	HFNC	6,562	6.9±3.9	Male, 57.3	-	-	Critical asthma (e.g., status asthmaticus, asthma exacerbation)	PICU
			BiPAP	3,164	9±4.5	Male, 56.1	-	-
			CPAP	357	7.6±4.4	Male, 59.1	-	-

HFNC: high-flow nasal cannula; HR: heart rate; RR: respiratory rate; SpO₂: peripheral capillary oxygen saturation; PIS: pulmonary index score; pCO₂: partial pressure of carbon dioxide; pO₂: partial pressure of oxygen; ED: emergency department; NIV: non-invasive ventilation; SatO₂/FiO₂: saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio; HCO3: bicarbonate; PICU: pediatric intensive care unit; BiPAP: bilevel positive airway pressure; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; SaO₂: arterial oxygen saturation.

Table 2.

Risk of bias assessment - Newcastle Ottawa scale

No	Study	Selection	Comparability	Outcome
1	Delgado et al. 2023 [34]	★★★★	★★	★★★
2	Gates et al. 2021 [13]	★★★★	★★	★★★
3	González Martínez et al. 2019 [25]	★★★★	★★	★★★
4	Pilar et al. 2017 [35]	★★★★	★★	★★★
5	Rogerson et al. 2023 [36]	★★★★	★★	★★★
6	Russi et al. 2022 [37]	★★★★	★★	★★★
7	Russi et al. 2024 [38]	★★★★	★★	★★★

Studies were rated either as “good” (3 or 4 points in selection, 1 or 2 points in comparability, and 2 or 3 points in outcomes), “fair” (2 points in selection, 1 or 2 points in comparability, and 2 or 3 points in outcomes), or “poor” (0 or 1 points in selection, 0 point in comparability, or 0 or 1 points in outcomes).

Table 3.

GRADE evidence profile

Outcome	Included studies	Quality assessment						Summary of findings (effect size, 95% CI)
Outcome	Included studies	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Overall quality of evidence	Summary of findings (effect size, 95% CI)
Improvement of pulmonary score	2 RCT	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 1.53; 0.44–5.27
Improvement of pulmonary score	2 RCT	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	Low	OR, 1.53; 0.44–5.27
PICU admission	1 RCT, 1 cohort	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 3.34; 0.26–43.52
PICU admission	1 RCT, 1 cohort	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	Low	OR, 3.34; 0.26–43.52
Readmission	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 3.14; 1.07–9.24
Readmission	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	Low	OR, 3.14; 1.07–9.24
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. standard therapy)	1 RCT, 2 cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 1.78; 0.76–4.19
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. standard therapy)	1 RCT, 2 cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	Low	OR, 1.78; 0.76–4.19
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. CPAP/BiPAP)	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	⊕〇〇〇	OR, 5.98; 0.77–46.23
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. CPAP/BiPAP)	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	Very low	OR, 5.98; 0.77–46.23

GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations; RCT: randomized controlled trial; NA: not applicable; OR: odds ratio; PICU: pediatric intensive care unit; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; BiPAP: bilevel positive airway pressure.

^a)Substantial heterogeneity was observed;

^b)Wide confidence intervals;

^c)Publication bias could not be evaluated as fewer than 10 studies were evaluated.

REFERENCES

1. Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. Global Initiative for Asthma; 2019.
2. García-Marcos L, Asher MI, Pearce N, Ellwood E, Bissell K, Chiang CY, et al. The burden of asthma, hay fever and eczema in children in 25 countries: GAN phase I study. Eur Respir J 2022;60:2102866.
3. Pearce N, Aït-Khaled N, Beasley R, Mallol J, Keil U, Mitchell E, et al. Worldwide trends in the prevalence of asthma symptoms: phase III of the international study of asthma and allergies in childhood (ISAAC). Thorax 2007;62:758-66.Article PubMed PMC
4. Triasih R, Setyowireni D, Nurani N, Setyati A. Prevalence, management, and risk factors of asthma among school-age children in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. J Asthma Allergy 2023;16:23-32.Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Asher I, Pearce N. Global burden of asthma among children. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2014;18:1269-78.Article PubMed
6. Asher MI, Rutter CE, Bissell K, Chiang CY, El Sony A, Ellwood E, et al. Worldwide trends in the burden of asthma symptoms in school-aged children: Global Asthma Network Phase I cross-sectional study. Lancet 2021;398:1569-80.Article PubMed PMC
7. Lee MO, Sivasankar S, Pokrajac N, Smith C, Lumba-Brown A. Emergency department treatment of asthma in children: a review. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open 2020;1:1552-61.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Al Ghadeer HA, Aldandan JK, Alessa MA, Al Ali SA, Alajalin AM, Al Ghadeer AA, et al. Predictive factors of hospitalization and emergency visits among children with asthma. Cureus 2024;16:e51487. Article PubMed PMC
9. Carroll CL, Sala KA. Pediatric status asthmaticus. Crit Care Clin 2013;29:153-66.Article PubMed
10. Manti S, Licari A, Leonardi S, Marseglia GL. Management of asthma exacerbations in the paediatric population: a systematic review. Eur Respir Rev 2021;30:200367.Article
11. Engelkes M, Janssens HM, de Ridder MA, Sturkenboom MC, de Jongste JC, Verhamme KM. Real life data on incidence and risk factors of severe asthma exacerbations in children in primary care. Respir Med 2016;119:48-54.Article PubMed
12. Wong JJ, Lee JH, Turner DA, Rehder KJ. A review of the use of adjunctive therapies in severe acute asthma exacerbation in critically ill children. Expert Rev Respir Med 2014;8:423-41.Article PubMed
13. Gates RM, Haynes KE, Rehder KJ, Zimmerman KO, Rotta AT, Miller AG. High-flow nasal cannula in pediatric critical asthma. Respir Care 2021;66:1240-6.Article PubMed
14. Basnet S, Mander G, Andoh J, Klaska H, Verhulst S, Koirala J. Safety, efficacy, and tolerability of early initiation of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in pediatric patients admitted with status asthmaticus: a pilot study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012;13:393-8.Article PubMed
15. Laher AE, Buchanan SK. Mechanically ventilating the severe asthmatic. J Intensive Care Med 2018;33:491-501.Article PubMed PDF
16. Rehder KJ. Adjunct therapies for refractory status asthmaticus in children. Respir Care 2017;62:849-65.Article PubMed
17. Hutchings FA, Hilliard TN, Davis PJ. Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula therapy in children. Arch Dis Child 2015;100:571-5.Article PubMed
18. Mikalsen IB, Davis P, Øymar K. High flow nasal cannula in children: a literature review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2016;24:93.Article PubMed PMC
19. ten Brink F, Duke T, Evans J. High-flow nasal prong oxygen therapy or nasopharyngeal continuous positive airway pressure for children with moderate-to-severe respiratory distress? Pediatr Crit Care Med 2013;14:e326-31.Article PubMed
20. Dysart K, Miller TL, Wolfson MR, Shaffer TH. Research in high flow therapy: mechanisms of action. Respir Med 2009;103:1400-5.Article PubMed
21. Nolasco S, Manti S, Leonardi S, Vancheri C, Spicuzza L. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy: physiological mechanisms and clinical applications in children. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:920549.Article PubMed PMC
22. Rogerson CM, E Carroll A, Tu W, He T, K Schleyer T, M Rowan C, et al. Frequency and correlates of pediatric high-flow nasal cannula use for bronchiolitis, asthma, and pneumonia. Respir Care 2022;67:976-84.Article PubMed PMC
23. Kawaguchi A, Garros D, Joffe A, DeCaen A, Thomas NJ, Schibler A, et al. Variation in practice related to the use of high flow nasal cannula in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2020;21:e228-35.Article PubMed
24. Long E, Babl FE, Duke T. Is there a role for humidified heated high-flow nasal cannula therapy in paediatric emergency departments? Emerg Med J 2016;33:386-9.Article PubMed
25. González Martínez F, González Sánchez MI, Toledo Del Castillo B, Pérez Moreno J, Medina Muñoz M, Rodríguez Jiménez C, et al. Treatment with high-flow oxygen therapy in asthma exacerbations in a paediatric hospital ward: Experience from 2012 to 2016. An Pediatr (Engl Ed) 2019;90:72-8.Article PubMed
26. Chao KY, Chien YH, Mu SC. High-flow nasal cannula in children with asthma exacerbation: a review of current evidence. Paediatr Respir Rev 2021;40:52-7.Article PubMed
27. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.Article PubMed PMC
28. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.Article PubMed
29. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [Internet]. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2024 [cited 2025 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
30. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008;336:1106-10.Article PubMed PMC
31. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020.
32. Ballestero Y, De Pedro J, Portillo N, Martinez-Mugica O, Arana-Arri E, Benito J. Pilot clinical trial of high-flow oxygen therapy in children with asthma in the emergency service. J Pediatr 2018;194:204-10.e3.Article PubMed
33. Gauto Benítez R, Morilla Sanabria LP, Pavlicich V, Mesquita M. High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in patients with asthmatic crisis in the pediatric emergency department. Rev Chil Pediatr 2019;90:642-8.Article PubMed
34. Delgado CS, García-Salido A, García-Teresa MÁ, Azagra-Garde AM, Leoz-Gordillo I, Caro-Patón GL, et al. High-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in pediatric asthma exacerbation: two-year prospective observational study in intensive care. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2023;80:355-60.Article PubMed
35. Pilar J, Modesto I Alapont V, Lopez-Fernandez YM, Lopez-Macias O, Garcia-Urabayen D, Amores-Hernandez I. High-flow nasal cannula therapy versus non-invasive ventilation in children with severe acute asthma exacerbation: an observational cohort study. Med Intensiva 2017;41:418-24.Article PubMed
36. Rogerson C, Owora A, He T, Carroll A, Schleyer T, AbuSultaneh S, et al. High flow nasal cannula use is associated with increased hospital length of stay for pediatric asthma. Pediatr Pulmonol 2023;58:3046-53.Article PubMed PMC
37. Russi BW, Lew A, McKinley SD, Morrison JM, Sochet AA. High-flow nasal cannula and bilevel positive airway pressure for pediatric status asthmaticus: a single center, retrospective descriptive and comparative cohort study. J Asthma 2022;59:757-64.Article PubMed
38. Russi BW, Roberts AR, Nievas IF, Rogerson CM, Morrison JM, Sochet AA. Noninvasive respiratory support for pediatric critical asthma: a multicenter cohort study. Respir Care 2024;69:534-40.Article PubMed PMC
39. Ramnarayan P, Richards-Belle A, Drikite L, Saull M, Orzechowska I, Darnell R, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure following extubation on liberation from respiratory support in critically ill children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022;327:1555-65.Article PMC
40. Ramnarayan P, Richards-Belle A, Drikite L, Saull M, Orzechowska I, Darnell R, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure therapy on liberation from respiratory support in acutely ill children admitted to pediatric critical care units: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022;328:162-72.Article PubMed PMC
41. Murphy K, Kessel A. 1242: High-flow nasal cannula versus bilevel positive pressure ventilation for status asthmaticus. Crit Care Med 2019;47:597.Article
42. Wing R, James C, Maranda LS, Armsby CC. Use of high-flow nasal cannula support in the emergency department reduces the need for intubation in pediatric acute respiratory insufficiency. Pediatr Emerg Care 2012;28:1117-23.Article
43. Schibler A, Pham TM, Dunster KR, Foster K, Barlow A, Gibbons K, et al. Reduced intubation rates for infants after introduction of high-flow nasal prong oxygen delivery. Intensive Care Med 2011;37:847-52.Article PDF
44. Kelly GS, Simon HK, Sturm JJ. High-flow nasal cannula use in children with respiratory distress in the emergency department: predicting the need for subsequent intubation. Pediatr Emerg Care 2013;29:888-92.Article PubMed
45. Abboud PA, Roth PJ, Skiles CL, Stolfi A, Rowin ME. Predictors of failure in infants with viral bronchiolitis treated with high-flow, high-humidity nasal cannula therapy. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012;13:e343-9.Article PubMed
46. REmimazolam Infusion in the Context of Hypnotic Shortage in the Critical Care Unit During the Pandemic of COVID-19: REHSCU Study (REHSCU). In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2000 [cited 2025 Aug 10]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04611425
47. High flow nasal cannula rates in pediatric asthma. In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2023 [cited 2025 Aug 10]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06379607#study-plan

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

High-flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in children with severe asthma attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acute Crit Care. 2026;41(1):148-159. Published online October 24, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.003744

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

The efficacy of therapeutic hypothermia in patients with poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

High-flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in children with severe asthma attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart. This diagram summarizes the search strategy and selection process applied to include articles eligible for this meta-analysis.

Figure 2. Risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Figure 3. Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for severe asthma attacks. The horizontal line indicates the 95% CI of a study. Squares represent the results of a study. Square size varies according to the weight of a particular study. The diamond at the bottom of the plot represents the pooled analysis of all included studies. The outer edges of the diamond indicate the CIs. (A) Improvement of pulmonary score. (B) Admission to pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). (C) Readmission post-discharge. (D) Escalation of ventilatory support (vs. standard oxygen therapy). (E) Escalation of ventilatory support (vs. other non-invasive ventilation). df: degree of freedom; I2: test of heterogeneity; M-H: Mantel-Haenszel; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; BiPAP: bilevel positive airway pressure.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

High-flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in children with severe asthma attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study	Region	Study design	Group	Sample size	Baseline characteristics				Diagnosis	Setting
Study	Region	Study design	Group	Sample size	Age (yr)	Sex (%)	Clinical parameters	Blood gas values	Diagnosis	Setting
Ballestero et al. (2018) [32]	Spain	Single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	HFNC	30	3.0 (1.7–6.0)	Male, 53	HR, 162.0 (144.7–175.2); RR, 48.0 (40.7–52.5); SpO₂, 98.0 (95.7–99.0) (with O₂therapy); PIS, 6.0 (6.0–7.0)	pH, 7.3 (7.2–7.4); pCO₂, 44.0 (38.7–53.2); pO₂, 4.0 (36.5–92.5)	Moderate to severe asthma exacerbations	ED
Ballestero et al. (2018) [32]	Spain	Single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	Control (standard oxygen therapy)	32	3.0 (2.0–6.0)	Male, 56	HR, 152.5 (139.2–173.0); RR, 48.0 (40.0–60.0); SpO₂, 97.5 (95.0–100.0) (with O₂ therapy); PIS, 6.0 (6.0–6.75)	pH, 7.3 (7.2–7.4); pCO₂, 44.0 (39.7–49.5); pO₂, 43.0 (34.0–48.5)	Moderate to severe asthma exacerbations	ED
Benítez et al. (2019) [33]	Paraguay	Single center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	HFNC	32	5 (2–14)	Male, 31.3	RR, 43.8±10.56; SpO₂, 91 (82–99)	-	Moderate to severe asthma attacks	ED
Benítez et al. (2019) [33]	Paraguay	Single center, open-label, randomized controlled trial	Control (standard oxygen therapy)	33	4 (2–14)	Male, 48.5	RR, 46.3±11.62; SpO₂, 92 (80–98)	-	Moderate to severe asthma attacks	ED
Delgado et al. (2023) [34]	Spain	Prospective study	HFNC	56	29 mo (4–143)	Male, 49	RR, 39 (20–68); SatO₂/FiO₂, 204 (97–384); PIS, 5 (1–7)	pH, 7.37 (7.13–7.49);	Moderate to severe asthma attacks	PICU
								pCO₂, 35 (15.7–67);
								HCO₃, 20.7 (13.5–40)
			HFNC+NIV	14	12.5 mo (4–164)	Male, 54	RR, 43 (24–68); SatO₂/FiO₂, 185 (92–333); PIS, 5 (3‑8)	pH, 7.38 (7.15–7.47);
								pCO₂, 43.5 (32.8–86);
								HCO₃, 21.7 (17.9–32.4)
			NIV	6	14 mo (5–26)	Male, 34	RR, 52 (29–62); SatO₂/FiO₂, 101 (90–271); PIS, 5 (2–7)	pH, 7.41 (7.29–7.49); CO₂, 45.6 (28.1–51); HCO₃, 24.6 (21.7–28.9)
Gates et al. (2021) [13]	United States	Retrospective study	HFNC	104	5 (4–9)	Male, 49	HR, 158±16; RR, 37±0.4; FiO₂, 0.45±0.28; SpO₂, 95±3; admission PIS, 11 (9–12)	-	Critical asthma	PICU
Gates et al. (2021) [13]	United States	Retrospective study	Control (aerosol mask)	67	7 (5–10)	Male, 57	HR, 155±14; RR, 37±0.5; FiO₂, 0.50±0.29; SpO₂, 96±3; admission PIS, 10 (9–12)	-	Critical asthma	PICU
González Martínez et al. (2019) [25]	Spain	Retrospective study	HFNC	40	5 (4–6)	Male, 67.5	HR, 140 (130–146); RR, 45 (38–56);	-	Moderate to severe asthma exacerbation	Pediatric hospital ward
			HFNC	40	5 (4–6)	Male, 67.5	PIS, 7.2 (6–8.7)	-
			Control (no HFNC)	496	5 (4–7)	Male, 63.1	HR, 133 (120–146); RR, 40 (32–48); PIS, 5 (4–6)	-
Pilar et al. (2017) [35]	Spain	Retrospective study	HFNC	20	2.98 (1.52–4.42)	Male, 60	HR, 164 (141–167); RR, 48 (37–57); PCO₂, 48 (41–51.5); FiO₂, 0.6 (0.4–0.83); SpO₂, 98 (96–100)	-	Severe acute asthma exacerbation	PICU
Pilar et al. (2017) [35]	Spain	Retrospective study	NIV	22	3.74 (2.77–6.47)	Male, 77	HR, 146 (136–156); RR, 42 (33–50); PCO₂, 42 (39–47.75); FiO₂, 0.55 (0.35–0.8); SpO₂, 97 (96–99)	-	Severe acute asthma exacerbation	PICU
Rogerson et al. (2023) [36]	United States	Retrospective study	HFNC	1,766	2–18	Male, 57.7	HR: age 2–5, 149 (134–164); age 6–11, 134 (118–148); age 12–18, 120 (100–135)	-	Asthma	PICU
							RR: age 2–5, 38 (30–48); age 6–11, 30 (24–40); age 12–18, 25 (20–32);
							SpO₂, 96 (93–98)
			Control (no HFNC)	1,766		Male, 58.6	HR: age 2–5, 151 (135–163); age 6–11, 135 (121–148); age 12–18, 115 (94–132)	-
							RR: age 2–5, 40 (30–48); age 6–11, 31 (24–40); age 12–18, 22 (18–28);
							SatO₂, 96 (93–98)
Russi et al. (2022) [37]	United States	Single-center, retrospective study	HFNC	13	9.6±3.8	Male, 46	SaO₂, 94.4±3.1	PCO₂, 56 (30–63)	Status asthmaticus	PICU
Russi et al. (2022) [37]	United States	Single-center, retrospective study	BiPAP	26	10.9±3.7	Male, 46	SaO₂, 95.9±4	PCO₂, 52 (36–65)	Status asthmaticus	PICU
Russi et al. (2024) [38]	United States	Multi-center, retrospective study	HFNC	6,562	6.9±3.9	Male, 57.3	-	-	Critical asthma (e.g., status asthmaticus, asthma exacerbation)	PICU
			BiPAP	3,164	9±4.5	Male, 56.1	-	-
			CPAP	357	7.6±4.4	Male, 59.1	-	-

No	Study	Selection	Comparability	Outcome
1	Delgado et al. 2023 [34]	★★★★	★★	★★★
2	Gates et al. 2021 [13]	★★★★	★★	★★★
3	González Martínez et al. 2019 [25]	★★★★	★★	★★★
4	Pilar et al. 2017 [35]	★★★★	★★	★★★
5	Rogerson et al. 2023 [36]	★★★★	★★	★★★
6	Russi et al. 2022 [37]	★★★★	★★	★★★
7	Russi et al. 2024 [38]	★★★★	★★	★★★

Outcome	Included studies	Quality assessment						Summary of findings (effect size, 95% CI)
Outcome	Included studies	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Overall quality of evidence	Summary of findings (effect size, 95% CI)
Improvement of pulmonary score	2 RCT	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 1.53; 0.44–5.27
Improvement of pulmonary score	2 RCT	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	Low	OR, 1.53; 0.44–5.27
PICU admission	1 RCT, 1 cohort	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 3.34; 0.26–43.52
PICU admission	1 RCT, 1 cohort	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	Low	OR, 3.34; 0.26–43.52
Readmission	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 3.14; 1.07–9.24
Readmission	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	Low	OR, 3.14; 1.07–9.24
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. standard therapy)	1 RCT, 2 cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	⊕⊕〇〇	OR, 1.78; 0.76–4.19
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. standard therapy)	1 RCT, 2 cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Not serious	NA^c)	Low	OR, 1.78; 0.76–4.19
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. CPAP/BiPAP)	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	⊕〇〇〇	OR, 5.98; 0.77–46.23
Escalation of respiratory support (vs. CPAP/BiPAP)	2 Cohorts	Not serious	Serious^a)	Not serious	Serious^b)	NA^c)	Very low	OR, 5.98; 0.77–46.23

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies

Table 2. Risk of bias assessment - Newcastle Ottawa scale

Table 3. GRADE evidence profile

Substantial heterogeneity was observed;

Wide confidence intervals;

Publication bias could not be evaluated as fewer than 10 studies were evaluated.