Skip to content

Comparison Between 2l vs 3l in HFNC During the Initial Management of Severe Bronchiolitis in Infants

Comparison Between 2l/Min/kg vs 3l/Min/kg in High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) During the Initial Management of Severe Bronchiolitis in Infants

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02824744
Acronym
TRAMONTANE2
Enrollment
300
Registered
2016-07-07
Start date
2016-11-02
Completion date
2018-03-01
Last updated
2026-06-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Bronchiolitis

Keywords

Bronchiolitis, High flow nasal canula

Brief summary

The purpose of the study is to evaluate prospectively the clinical benefits of 2 different flow with High flow nasal canula (HFNC: 2l/kg/min) versus (HFNC: 2l/kg/min) in the initial management of bronchiolitis in infants. Design: Prospective, controlled, randomized, multi-center. Design: Infants less than 6 month admitted in pediatric intensive care unit for respiratory distress (mWCAS \>3) secondary to bronchiolitis but not requiring mechanical ventilation will be randomized in two groups:HFNC "2l/min/kg" or HFNC "3l/min/kg" during 24 hours. Conditions of measurements: Primary endpoint: Proportion of failure in both arms during the first 24 hours. Failure criteria: A raise of the Clinical score for respiratory distress (mWCAS) (1 point) or respiratory rate (10/min /H0 and above 60/min) or discomfort (EDIN) (1point /H0 and above 4) or apnea. Secondary outcomes: Assessment at H1, H12, H24 of mWCAS, respiratory and heart rate, EDIN score, skin lesions, FiO2 required to achieve an oxygen saturation between 94 and 97%, transcutaneous PCO2 (correlated to an initial gas analysis), Report SpO2 / FiO2 Statistic: Intention to treat Analysis. Expected number of patients: 135 per arm: 270 children.

Interventions

DEVICEtreatment by 2l/min/kg in High Flow Nasal cannula (HFNC)
DEVICEtreatment by 3l/min/kg in High Flow Nasal cannula (HFNC)

Sponsors

University Hospital, Montpellier
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
0 Years to 6 Months
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* age \< 6 months * bronchiolitis * mWCAS \> or =3 * hospitalisation: PICU * signed consent form by parents

Exclusion criteria

* Intubated patient * Neurological or cardiac disease

Design outcomes

Primary

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

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
assessment of heart rate in both armup to 24 hours
Assessment of the discomfort in both arms with the score of EDINup to 24 hours
assessment of the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in both armsup to 24 hoursFiO2 required to achieve an oxygen saturation between 94 and 97%
number of participants with an aggravation of the clinical score for respiratory distress arms (mWCAS)up to 24 hours

Countries

France

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Jun 16, 2026