CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE ... - AFPA · CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE ClinicalPracticeGuideline:TheDiagnosis,Management, and Prevention of Bronchiolitis abstract

CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE

Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis, Management,and Prevention of Bronchiolitis

abstractThis guideline is a revision of the clinical practice guideline, “Diagnosisand Management of Bronchiolitis,” published by the American Academyof Pediatrics in 2006. The guideline applies to children from 1 through23 months of age. Other exclusions are noted. Each key action state-ment indicates level of evidence, benefit-harm relationship, and levelof recommendation. Key action statements are as follows: Pediatrics2014;134:e1474–e1502

DIAGNOSIS

1a. Clinicians should diagnose bronchiolitis and assess disease se-verity on the basis of history and physical examination (EvidenceQuality: B; Recommendation Strength: Strong Recommendation).

1b. Clinicians should assess risk factors for severe disease, such asage less than 12 weeks, a history of prematurity, underlying car-diopulmonary disease, or immunodeficiency, when making decisionsabout evaluation and management of children with bronchiolitis(Evidence Quality: B; Recommendation Strength: Moderate Rec-ommendation).

1c. When clinicians diagnose bronchiolitis on the basis of history andphysical examination, radiographic or laboratory studies shouldnot be obtained routinely (Evidence Quality: B; RecommendationStrength: Moderate Recommendation).

TREATMENT

2. Clinicians should not administer albuterol (or salbutamol) to in-fants and children with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis (Evidence Qual-ity: B; Recommendation Strength: Strong Recommendation).

3. Clinicians should not administer epinephrine to infants and childrenwith a diagnosis of bronchiolitis (Evidence Quality: B; Recommen-dation Strength: Strong Recommendation).

4a. Nebulized hypertonic saline should not be administered to in-fants with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis in the emergency depart-ment (Evidence Quality: B; Recommendation Strength: ModerateRecommendation).

4b. Clinicians may administer nebulized hypertonic saline to infantsand children hospitalized for bronchiolitis (Evidence Quality: B;Recommendation Strength: Weak Recommendation [based on ran-domized controlled trials with inconsistent findings]).

Shawn L. Ralston, MD, FAAP, Allan S. Lieberthal, MD, FAAP,H. Cody Meissner, MD, FAAP, Brian K. Alverson, MD, FAAP, Jill E.Baley, MD, FAAP, Anne M. Gadomski, MD, MPH, FAAP,David W. Johnson, MD, FAAP, Michael J. Light, MD, FAAP,Nizar F. Maraqa, MD, FAAP, Eneida A. Mendonca, MD, PhD,FAAP, FACMI, Kieran J. Phelan, MD, MSc, Joseph J. Zorc, MD,MSCE, FAAP, Danette Stanko-Lopp, MA, MPH, Mark A.Brown, MD, Ian Nathanson, MD, FAAP, ElizabethRosenblum, MD, Stephen Sayles III, MD, FACEP, and SinsiHernandez-Cancio, JD

KEY WORDSbronchiolitis, infants, children, respiratory syncytial virus,evidence-based, guideline

ABBREVIATIONSAAP—American Academy of PediatricsAOM—acute otitis mediaCI—confidence intervalED—emergency departmentKAS—Key Action StatementLOS—length of stayMD—mean differencePCR—polymerase chain reactionRSV—respiratory syncytial virusSBI—serious bacterial infection

This document is copyrighted and is property of the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors havefiled conflict of interest statements with the American Academy ofPediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a processapproved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy ofPediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercialinvolvement in the development of the content of this publication.

The recommendations in this report do not indicate an exclusivecourse of treatment or serve as a standard ofmedical care. Variations,taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

All clinical practice guidelines from the American Academy ofPediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unlessreaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

Dedicated to the memory of Dr Caroline Breese Hall.

www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2014-2742

doi:10.1542/peds.2014-2742

PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).

Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

e1474 FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

Guidance for the Clinician inRendering Pediatric Care

by guest on August 27, 2017Downloaded from by guest on August 27, 2017Downloaded from by guest on August 27, 2017Downloaded from

5. Clinicians should not administersystemic corticosteroids to infantswith a diagnosis of bronchiolitis inany setting (Evidence Quality: A; Rec-ommendation Strength: Strong Rec-ommendation).

6a. Clinicians may choose not to ad-minister supplemental oxygen ifthe oxyhemoglobin saturation ex-ceeds 90% in infants and childrenwith a diagnosis of bronchiolitis(Evidence Quality: D; Recommen-dation Strength: Weak Recommen-dation [based on low level evidenceand reasoning from first princi-ples]).

6b. Clinicians may choose not to usecontinuous pulse oximetry for in-fants and children with a diagnosisof bronchiolitis (Evidence Quality:D; Recommendation Strength: WeakRecommendation [based on low-level evidence and reasoning fromfirst principles]).

7. Clinicians should not use chestphysiotherapy for infants and chil-dren with a diagnosis of bron-chiolitis (Evidence Quality: B;Recommendation Strength: Mod-erate Recommendation).

8. Clinicians should not administerantibacterial medications to in-fants and children with a diagno-sis of bronchiolitis unless thereis a concomitant bacterial infec-tion, or a strong suspicion of one(Evidence Quality: B; Recommen-dation Strength: Strong Recom-mendation).

9. Clinicians should administer naso-gastric or intravenous fluids forinfants with a diagnosis of bron-chiolitis who cannot maintain hy-dration orally (Evidence Quality: X;Recommendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).

PREVENTION

10a. Clinicians should not administerpalivizumab to otherwise healthyinfants with a gestational age of

29 weeks, 0 days or greater(Evidence Quality: B; Recom-mendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).

10b. Clinicians should administerpalivizumab during the firstyear of life to infants with he-modynamically significant heartdisease or chronic lung diseaseof prematurity defined as pre-term infants<32 weeks 0 days’gestation who require >21%oxygen for at least the first28 days of life (Evidence Quality:B; Recommendation Strength:Moderate Recommendation).

10c. Clinicians should administera maximum 5 monthly doses(15 mg/kg/dose) of palivizumabduring the respiratory syncytialvirus season to infants whoqualify for palivizumab in thefirst year of life (Evidence Quality:B; Recommendation Strength:Moderate Recommendation).

11a. All people should disinfect handsbefore and after direct contactwith patients, after contact withinanimate objects in the directvicinity of the patient, and afterremoving gloves (Evidence Qual-ity: B; Recommendation Strength:Strong Recommendation).

11b. All people should use alcohol-based rubs for hand decontam-ination when caring for childrenwith bronchiolitis. When alcohol-based rubs are not available,individuals should wash theirhands with soap and water(Evidence Quality: B; Recom-mendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).

12a. Clinicians should inquire aboutthe exposure of the infant orchild to tobacco smoke whenassessing infants and chil-dren for bronchiolitis (EvidenceQuality: C; RecommendationStrength: Moderate Recom-mendation).

12b. Clinicians should counsel care-givers about exposing the in-fant or child to environmentaltobacco smoke and smokingcessation when assessing achild for bronchiolitis (EvidenceQuality: B; RecommendationStrength: Strong).

13. Clinicians should encourage ex-clusive breastfeeding for at least6 months to decrease the mor-bidity of respiratory infections.(Evidence Quality: B; Recommen-dation Strength: Moderate Rec-ommendation).

14. Clinicians and nurses should ed-ucate personnel and family mem-bers on evidence-based diagnosis,treatment, and prevention in bron-chiolitis. (Evidence Quality: C; obser-vational studies; RecommendationStrength: Moderate Recommenda-tion).

INTRODUCTION

In October 2006, the American Acad-emy of Pediatrics (AAP) published theclinical practice guideline “Diagnosisand Management of Bronchiolitis.”1

The guideline offered recommendationsranked according to level of evidenceand the benefit-harm relationship. Sincecompletion of the original evidence re-view in July 2004, a significant body ofliterature on bronchiolitis has beenpublished. This update of the 2006 AAPbronchiolitis guideline evaluates pub-lished evidence, including that used inthe 2006 guideline as well as evidencepublished since 2004. Key action state-ments (KASs) based on that evidenceare provided.

The goal of this guideline is to providean evidence-based approach to the di-agnosis, management, and preventionof bronchiolitis in children from 1 monththrough 23 months of age. The guidelineis intended for pediatricians, familyphysicians, emergency medicine spe-cialists, hospitalists, nurse practitioners,

PEDIATRICS Volume 134, Number 5, November 2014 e1475

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

by guest on August 27, 2017Downloaded from

and physician assistants who care forthese children. The guideline does notapply to children with immunodeficien-cies, including those with HIV infectionor recipients of solid organ or hema-topoietic stem cell transplants. Childrenwith underlying respiratory illnesses,such as recurrent wheezing, chronicneonatal lung disease (also known asbronchopulmonary dysplasia), neuro-muscular disease, or cystic fibrosis andthose with hemodynamically significantcongenital heart disease are excludedfrom the sections on management un-less otherwise noted but are included inthe discussion of prevention. This guide-line will not address long-term sequelaeof bronchiolitis, such as recurrentwheezing or risk of asthma, which isa field with a large and distinct lit-erature.

Bronchiolitis is a disorder commonlycaused by viral lower respiratory tractinfection in infants. Bronchiolitis ischaracterized by acute inflammation,edema, and necrosis of epithelial cellslining small airways, and increasedmucus production. Signs and symp-toms typically begin with rhinitis andcough, which may progress to tachy-pnea, wheezing, rales, use of accessorymuscles, and/or nasal flaring.2

Many viruses that infect the respiratorysystem cause a similar constellation ofsigns and symptoms. The most com-mon etiology of bronchiolitis is re-spiratory syncytial virus (RSV), with thehighest incidence of infection occurringbetween December and March in NorthAmerica; however, regional variationsoccur3 (Fig 1).4 Ninety percent of chil-dren are infected with RSV in the first2 years of life,5 and up to 40% willexperience lower respiratory tract in-fection during the initial infection.6,7

Infection with RSV does not grant per-manent or long-term immunity, withreinfections common throughout life.8

Other viruses that cause bronchiolitisinclude human rhinovirus, human meta-

pneumovirus, influenza, adenovirus,coronavirus, human, and parainflu-enza viruses. In a study of inpatientsand outpatients with bronchiolitis,9

76% of patients had RSV, 39% hadhuman rhinovirus, 10% had influenza,2% had coronavirus, 3% had humanmetapneumovirus, and 1% had para-influenza viruses (some patients hadcoinfections, so the total is greater than100%).

Bronchiolitis is themost common causeof hospitalization among infants duringthe first 12 months of life. Approximately100 000 bronchiolitis admissions occurannually in the United States at anestimated cost of $1.73 billion.10 Oneprospective, population-based studysponsored by the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention reported the

average RSV hospitalization rate was5.2 per 1000 children younger than 24months of age during the 5-year pe-riod between 2000 and 2005.11 Thehighest age-specific rate of RSV hos-pitalization occurred among infantsbetween 30 days and 60 days of age(25.9 per 1000 children). For preterminfants (<37 weeks’ gestation), theRSV hospitalization rate was 4.6 per1000 children, a number similar tothe RSV hospitalization rate for terminfants of 5.2 per 1000. Infants bornat <30 weeks’ gestation had thehighest hospitalization rate at 18.7children per 1000, although the smallnumber of infants born before 30weeks’ gestation make this numberunreliable. Other studies indicate theRSV hospitalization rate in extremely

FIGURE 1RSV season by US regions. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RSV activity—United States,July 2011–Jan 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(8):141–144.

e1476 FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICSby guest on August 27, 2017Downloaded from

preterm infants is similar to that ofterm infants.12,13

METHODS

In June 2013, the AAP convened a newsubcommittee to review and revise the2006 bronchiolitis guideline. The sub-committee included primary care physi-cians, including general pediatricians,a family physician, and pediatric sub-specialists, including hospitalists, pul-monologists, emergency physicians, aneonatologist, and pediatric infectiousdisease physicians. The subcommit-tee also included an epidemiologisttrained in systematic reviews, a guide-line methodologist/informatician, and aparent representative. All panel mem-bers reviewed the AAP Policy on Conflictof Interest and Voluntary Disclosure andwere given an opportunity to declare anypotential conflicts. Any conflicts can befound in the author listing at the end ofthis guideline. All funding was providedby the AAP, with travel assistance fromthe American Academy of Family Phy-sicians, the American College of ChestPhysicians, the American ThoracicSociety, and the American Collegeof Emergency Physicians for theirliaisons.

The evidence search and review includedelectronic database searches in TheCochrane Library, Medline via Ovid,and CINAHL via EBSCO. The searchstrategy is shown in the Appendix. Re-lated article searches were conductedin PubMed. The bibliographies of arti-cles identified by database searcheswere also reviewed by 1 of 4 membersof the committee, and references iden-tified in this manner were added tothe review. Articles included in the2003 evidence report on bronchiolitisin preparation of the AAP 2006 guide-line2 also were reviewed. In addition,the committee reviewed articles pub-lished after completion of the sys-tematic review for these updatedguidelines. The current literature re-

view encompasses the period from2004 through May 2014.

The evidence-based approach to guide-line development requires that the evi-dence in support of a policy be identified,appraised, and summarized and that anexplicit link between evidence and rec-ommendations be defined. Evidence-based recommendations reflect thequality of evidence and the balance ofbenefit and harm that is anticipatedwhen the recommendation is followed.The AAP policy statement “Classify-ing Recommendations for ClinicalPractice”14 was followed in designat-ing levels of recommendation (Fig 2;Table 1).

A draft version of this clinical practiceguideline underwent extensive peerreview by committees, councils, andsections within AAP; the AmericanThoracic Society, American College ofChest Physicians, American Academy

of Family Physicians, and AmericanCollege of Emergency Physicians; otheroutside organizations; and other in-dividuals identified by the subcom-mittee as experts in the field. Theresulting comments were reviewedby the subcommittee and, when ap-propriate, incorporated into the guide-line.

This clinical practice guideline is notintended as a sole source of guidancein the management of children withbronchiolitis. Rather, it is intended toassist clinicians in decision-making.It is not intended to replace clinicaljudgment or establish a protocol forthe care of all children with bronchi-olitis. These recommendations may notprovide the only appropriate approachto the management of children withbronchiolitis.

All AAP guidelines are reviewed every5 years.

FIGURE 2Integrating evidence quality appraisal with an assessment of the anticipated balance between benefitsand harms leads to designation of a policy as a strong recommendation, moderate recommendation,or weak recommendation.




DIAGNOSIS

Key Action Statement 1a

Clinicians should diagnose bronchi-olitis and assess disease severityon the basis of history and physicalexamination (Evidence Quality: B;Recommendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).

Action Statement Profile KAS 1a

Key Action Statement 1b

Clinicians should assess risk fac-tors for severe disease, such asage <12 weeks, a history of pre-maturity, underlying cardiopulmo-nary disease, or immunodeficiency,when making decisions about eval-

uation and management of childrenwith bronchiolitis (Evidence Quality:B; Recommendation Strength: Mod-erate Recommendation).

Action Statement Profile KAS 1b

Key Action Statement 1c

When clinicians diagnose bronchi-olitis on the basis of history andphysical examination, radiographicor laboratory studies should not beobtained routinely (Evidence Qual-ity: B; Recommendation Strength:Moderate Recommendation).


The main goals in the history andphysical examination of infants pre-senting with wheeze or other lowerrespiratory tract symptoms, particularlyin the winter season, is to differentiateinfants with probable viral bronchiolitisfrom those with other disorders. In ad-dition, an estimate of disease severity(increased respiratory rate, retractions,decreased oxygen saturation) should

TABLE 1 Guideline Definitions for Evidence-Based Statements

Statement Definition Implication

Strong recommendation A particular action is favored because anticipated benefitsclearly exceed harms (or vice versa), and quality of evidenceis excellent or unobtainable.

Clinicians should follow a strong recommendation unlessa clear and compelling rationale for an alternative approachis present.

Moderate recommendation A particular action is favored because anticipated benefitsclearly exceed harms (or vice versa), and the quality ofevidence is good but not excellent (or is unobtainable).

Clinicians would be prudent to follow a moderaterecommendation but should remain alert to newinformation and sensitive to patient preferences.

Weak recommendation (based onlow-quality evidence

A particular action is favored because anticipated benefitsclearly exceed harms (or vice versa), but the quality ofevidence is weak.

Clinicians would be prudent to follow a weak recommendationbut should remain alert to new information and verysensitive to patient preferences.

Weak recommendation (based onbalance of benefits and harms)

Weak recommendation is provided when the aggregatedatabase shows evidence of both benefit and harm thatappear similar in magnitude for any available courses ofaction

Clinicians should consider the options in their decision making,but patient preference may have a substantial role.

Aggregate evidencequality

B

Benefits Inexpensive,noninvasive, accurate

Risk, harm, cost Missing otherdiagnoses

Benefit-harmassessment

Benefits outweighharms

Value judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patientpreferences

None

Exclusions NoneStrength Strong recommendationDifferences of opinion None

Aggregateevidencequality

B

Benefits Improved ability to predictcourse of illness,appropriate disposition

Risk, harm, cost Possible unnecessaryhospitalization parentalanxiety


Benefits outweigh harms

Value judgments NoneIntentionalvagueness

“Assess” is not defined

Role of patientpreferences

None

Exclusions NoneStrength Moderate recommendationDifferences ofopinion

None


B

Benefits Decreased radiationexposure, noninvasive(less procedure-associateddiscomfort), decreasedantibiotic use, cost savings,time saving

Risk, harm, cost Misdiagnosis, misseddiagnosis of comorbidcondition




None


None

Exclusions Infants and children withunexpected worseningdisease

Strength Moderate recommendationDifferences ofopinion

None


be made. Most clinicians recognizebronchiolitis as a constellation of clin-ical signs and symptoms occurring inchildren younger than 2 years, includ-ing a viral upper respiratory tractprodrome followed by increased re-spiratory effort and wheezing. Clinicalsigns and symptoms of bronchiolitisconsist of rhinorrhea, cough, tachypnea,wheezing, rales, and increased respi-ratory effort manifested as grunting,nasal flaring, and intercostal and/orsubcostal retractions.

The course of bronchiolitis is variableand dynamic, ranging from transientevents, such as apnea, to progressiverespiratory distress from lower airwayobstruction. Important issues to assessin the history include the effects of re-spiratory symptoms on mental status,feeding, and hydration. The clinicianshould assess the ability of the familyto care for the child and to return forfurther evaluation if needed. Historyof underlying conditions, such as pre-maturity, cardiac disease, chronicpulmonary disease, immunodeficiency,or episodes of previous wheezing, shouldbe identified. Underlying conditions thatmay be associated with an increasedrisk of progression to severe diseaseor mortality include hemodynamicallysignificant congenital heart disease,chronic lung disease (bronchopulmonarydysplasia), congenital anomalies,15–17

in utero smoke exposure,18 and thepresence of an immunocompromisingstate.19,20 In addition, genetic abnormal-ities have been associated with moresevere presentation with bronchiolitis.21

Assessment of a child with bronchiolitis,including the physical examination, canbe complicated by variability in the dis-ease state and may require serialobservations over time to fully assess thechild’s status. Upper airway obstructioncontributes to work of breathing. Suc-tioning and positioning may decreasethe work of breathing and improve thequality of the examination. Respiratory

rate in otherwise healthy childrenchanges considerably over the firstyear of life.22–25 In hospitalized children,the 50th percentile for respiratory ratedecreased from 41 at 0 to 3 months ofage to 31 at 12 to 18 months of age.26

Counting respiratory rate over thecourse of 1 minute is more accuratethan shorter observations.27 The pres-ence of a normal respiratory ratesuggests that risk of significant viralor bacterial lower respiratory tractinfection or pneumonia in an infant islow (negative likelihood ratio approxi-mately 0.5),27–29 but the presence oftachypnea does not distinguish be-tween viral and bacterial disease.30,31

The evidence relating the presence ofspecific findings in the assessment ofbronchiolitis to clinical outcomes islimited. Most studies addressing thisissue have enrolled children whenpresenting to hospital settings, in-cluding a large, prospective, multicen-ter study that assessed a variety ofoutcomes from the emergency de-partment (ED) and varied inpatientsettings.18,32,33 Severe adverse events,such as ICU admission and need formechanical ventilation, are uncommonamong children with bronchiolitis andlimit the power of these studiesto detect clinically important risk fac-tors associated with disease pro-gression.16,34,35 Tachypnea, defined asa respiratory rate ≥70 per minute, hasbeen associated with increased risk ofsevere disease in some studies35–37 butnot others.38 Many scoring systemshave been developed in an attempt toobjectively quantify respiratory dis-tress, although none has achievedwidespread acceptance and few havedemonstrated any predictive validity,likely because of the substantial tem-poral variability in physical findings ininfants with bronchiolitis.39

Pulse oximetry has been rapidly adoptedinto clinical assessment of childrenwith bronchiolitis on the basis of data

suggesting that it reliably detects hyp-oxemia not suspected on physicalexamination36,40; however, few studieshave assessed the effectiveness ofpulse oximetry to predict clinical out-comes. Among inpatients, perceivedneed for supplemental oxygen on thebasis of pulse oximetry has been as-sociated with prolonged hospitaliza-tion, ICU admission, and mechanicalventilation.16,34,41 Among outpatients,available evidence differs on whethermild reductions in pulse oximetry (<95%on room air) predict progression ofdisease or need for a return obser-vational visit.38

Apnea has been reported to occur witha wide range of prevalence estimatesand viral etiologies.42,43 Retrospective,hospital-based studies have includeda high proportion of infants with riskfactors, such as prematurity or neuro-muscular disease, that may have biasedthe prevalence estimates. One largestudy found no apnea events for infantsassessed as low risk by using severalrisk factors: age >1 month for full-terminfants or 48 weeks’ postconceptionalage for preterm infants, and absenceof any previous apneic event at pre-sentation to the hospital.44 Anotherlarge multicenter study found no asso-ciation between the specific viral agentand risk of apnea in bronchiolitis.42

The literature on viral testing for bron-chiolitis has expanded in recent yearswith the availability of sensitive poly-merase chain reaction (PCR) assays.Large studies of infants hospitalized forbronchiolitis have consistently foundthat 60% to 75% have positive test resultsfor RSV, and have noted coinfectionsin up to one-third of infants.32,33,45

In the event an infant receivingmonthly prophylaxis is hospitalizedwith bronchiolitis, testing should beperformed to determine if RSV is theetiologic agent. If a breakthrough RSVinfection is determined to be presentbased on antigen detection or other




assay, monthly palivizumab prophylaxisshould be discontinued because of thevery low likelihood of a second RSVinfection in the same year. Apart fromthis setting, routine virologic testing isnot recommended.

Infants with non-RSV bronchiolitis, inparticular human rhinovirus, appear tohave a shorter courses and may rep-resent a different phenotype associatedwith repeated wheezing.32 PCR assayresults should be interpreted cautiously,given that the assay may detect pro-longed viral shedding from an unrelatedprevious illness, particularly with rhi-novirus. In contrast, RSV detected byPCR assay almost always is associatedwith disease. At the individual patientlevel, the value of identifying a spe-cific viral etiology causing bronchi-olitis has not been demonstrated.33

Current evidence does not supportroutine chest radiography in childrenwith bronchiolitis. Although manyinfants with bronchiolitis have abnor-malities on chest radiography, dataare insufficient to demonstrate thatchest radiography correlates well withdisease severity. Atelectasis on chestradiography was associated with in-creased risk of severe disease in 1outpatient study.16 Further studies, in-cluding 1 randomized trial, suggestchildren with suspected lower respi-ratory tract infection who had radiog-raphy performed were more likely toreceive antibiotics without any differ-ence in outcomes.46,47 Initial radiographyshould be reserved for cases in whichrespiratory effort is severe enough towarrant ICU admission or where signsof an airway complication (such aspneumothorax) are present.

TREATMENT

ALBUTEROL

Key Action Statement 2

Clinicians should not administeralbuterol (or salbutamol) to infants

and children with a diagnosis ofbronchiolitis (Evidence Quality: B;Recommendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).

Action Statement Profile KAS 2

Although several studies and reviewshave evaluated the use of bronchodi-lator medications for viral bronchiolitis,most randomized controlled trials havefailed to demonstrate a consistent ben-efit from α- or β-adrenergic agents.Several meta-analyses and systematicreviews48–53 have shown that broncho-dilators may improve clinical symptomscores, but they do not affect diseaseresolution, need for hospitalization, orlength of stay (LOS). Because clinicalscores may vary from one observer tothe next39,54 and do not correlate withmore objective measures, such as pul-monary function tests,55 clinical scoresare not validated measures of the effi-cacy of bronchodilators. Although tran-sient improvements in clinical scorehave been observed, most infantstreated with bronchodilators will notbenefit from their use.

A recently updated Cochrane system-atic review assessing the impact ofbronchodilators on oxygen saturation,the primary outcomemeasure, reported30 randomized controlled trials in-volving 1992 infants in 12 countries.56

Some studies included in this reviewevaluated agents other than albuterol/salbutamol (eg, ipratropium and meta-proterenol) but did not include epi-nephrine. Small sample sizes, lack ofstandardized methods for outcomeevaluation (eg, timing of assessments),and lack of standardized intervention(various bronchodilators, drug dosages,routes of administration, and nebuliza-tion delivery systems) limit the in-terpretation of these studies. Becauseof variable study designs as well as theinclusion of infants who had a history ofprevious wheezing in some studies,there was considerable heterogeneityin the studies. Sensitivity analysis (ie,including only studies at low risk ofbias) significantly reduced heterogene-ity measures for oximetry while havinglittle effect on the overall effect size ofoximetry (mean difference [MD] –0.38,95% confidence interval [CI] –0.75 to0.00). Those studies showing benefit57–59

are methodologically weaker than otherstudies and include older children withrecurrent wheezing. Results of theCochrane review indicated no benefit inthe clinical course of infants withbronchiolitis who received bronchodi-lators. The potential adverse effects(tachycardia and tremors) and cost ofthese agents outweigh any potentialbenefits.

In the previous iteration of this guideline,a trial of β-agonists was included asan option. However, given the greaterstrength of the evidence demonstrat-ing no benefit, and that there is nowell-established way to determine an“objective method of response” tobronchodilators in bronchiolitis, thisoption has been removed. Although itis true that a small subset of children


B

Benefits Avoid adverse effects, avoidongoing use of ineffectivemedication, lower costs

Risk, harm, cost Missing transient benefit ofdrug



Value judgments Overall ineffectivenessoutweighs possibletransient benefit

Intentionalvagueness

None


None

Exclusions NoneStrength Strong recommendationDifferences ofopinion

None

Notes This guideline no longerrecommends a trial ofalbuterol, as was consideredin the 2006 AAP bronchiolitisguideline


with bronchiolitis may have reversibleairway obstruction resulting fromsmooth muscle constriction, attemptsto define a subgroup of respondershave not been successful to date. Ifa clinical trial of bronchodilators isundertaken, clinicians should note that thevariability of the disease process, the host’sairway, and the clinical assessments, par-ticularly scoring, would limit the clinician’sability to observe a clinically relevant re-sponse to bronchodilators.

Chavasse et al60 reviewed the availableliterature on use of β-agonists for chil-dren younger than 2 years with re-current wheezing. At the time of thatreview, there were 3 studies in theoutpatient setting, 2 in the ED, and 3in the pulmonary function laboratorysetting. This review concluded therewere no clear benefits from the useof β-agonists in this population. Theauthors noted some conflicting evi-dence, but further study was recom-mended only if the population could beclearly defined and meaningful out-come measures could be identified.

The population of children with bron-chiolitis studied in most trials ofbronchodilators limits the ability tomake recommendations for all clinicalscenarios. Children with severe diseaseor with respiratory failure were gen-erally excluded from these trials, andthis evidence cannot be generalized tothese situations. Studies using pulmo-nary function tests show no effect ofalbuterol among infants hospitalizedwith bronchiolitis.56,61 One study ina critical care setting showed a smalldecrease in inspiratory resistance af-ter albuterol in one group and leval-buterol in another group, but therapywas accompanied by clinically signifi-cant tachycardia.62 This small clinicalchange occurring with significant ad-verse effects does not justify recom-mending albuterol for routine care.

EPINEPHRINE


Clinicians should not administerepinephrine to infants and childrenwith a diagnosis of bronchiolitis(Evidence Quality: B; Recommenda-tion Strength: Strong Recommen-dation).


Epinephrine is an adrenergic agentwith both β- and α-receptor agonistactivity that has been used to treatupper and lower respiratory tract ill-nesses both as a systemic agent anddirectly into the respiratory tract,where it is typically administered asa nebulized solution. Nebulized epi-nephrine has been administered inthe racemic form and as the purifiedL-enantiomer, which is commerciallyavailable in the United States for in-travenous use. Studies in other dis-eases, such as croup, have found nodifference in efficacy on the basis ofpreparation,63 although the compari-son has not been specifically studiedfor bronchiolitis. Most studies havecompared L-epinephrine to placebo oralbuterol. A recent Cochrane meta-

analysis by Hartling et al64 systemati-cally evaluated the evidence on thistopic and found no evidence for utilityin the inpatient setting. Two large,multicenter randomized trials com-paring nebulized epinephrine to pla-cebo65 or albuterol66 in the hospitalsetting found no improvement in LOSor other inpatient outcomes. A recent,large multicenter trial found a similarlack of efficacy compared with pla-cebo and further demonstrated lon-ger LOS when epinephrine was usedon a fixed schedule compared with anas-needed schedule.67 This evidencesuggests epinephrine should not beused in children hospitalized for bron-chiolitis, except potentially as a rescueagent in severe disease, although for-mal study is needed before a recom-mendation for the use of epinephrinein this setting.

The role of epinephrine in the out-patient setting remains controver-sial. A major addition to the evidencebase came from the Canadian Bron-chiolitis Epinephrine Steroid Trial.68

This multicenter randomized trialenrolled 800 patients with bron-chiolitis from 8 EDs and comparedhospitalization rates over a 7-dayperiod. This study had 4 arms: neb-ulized epinephrine plus oral dexa-methasone, nebulized epinephrineplus oral placebo, nebulized placeboplus oral dexamethasone, and neb-ulized placebo plus oral placebo. Thegroup of patients who received epi-nephrine concomitantly with corti-costeroids had a lower likelihoodof hospitalization by day 7 than thedouble placebo group, although thiseffect was no longer statistically sig-nificant after adjusting for multiplecomparisons.

The systematic review by Hartlinget al64 concluded that epinephrinereduced hospitalizations comparedwith placebo on the day of the ED visitbut not overall. Given that epinephrine


B

Benefits Avoiding adverse effects, lowercosts, avoiding ongoing useof ineffective medication

Risk, harm, cost Missing transient benefit ofdrug



Value judgments The overall ineffectivenessoutweighs possible transientbenefit


None


None

Exclusions Rescue treatment of rapidlydeteriorating patients

Strength Strong recommendationDifferences of

opinionNone




has a transient effect and home ad-ministration is not routine practice,discharging an infant after observinga response in a monitored settingraises concerns for subsequent pro-gression of illness. Studies have notfound a difference in revisit rates,although the numbers of revisits aresmall and may not be adequatelypowered for this outcome. In summary,the current state of evidence does notsupport a routine role for epineph-rine for bronchiolitis in outpatients,although further data may help tobetter define this question.

HYPERTONIC SALINE


Nebulized hypertonic saline shouldnot be administered to infants witha diagnosis of bronchiolitis in theemergency department (EvidenceQuality: B; Recommendation Strength:Moderate Recommendation).



Clinicians may administer nebulizedhypertonic saline to infants andchildren hospitalized for bron-chiolitis (Evidence Quality: B; Rec-ommendation Strength: Weak

Recommendation [based on ran-domized controlled trials withinconsistent findings]).


Nebulized hypertonic saline is an in-creasingly studied therapy for acuteviral bronchiolitis. Physiologic evidencesuggests that hypertonic saline in-creases mucociliary clearance in bothnormal and diseased lungs.69–71 Becausethe pathology in bronchiolitis involvesairway inflammation and resultantmucus plugging, improved mucocili-ary clearance should be beneficial, al-though there is only indirect evidenceto support such an assertion. A morespecific theoretical mechanism of ac-tion has been proposed on the basis ofthe concept of rehydration of the air-way surface liquid, although again,evidence remains indirect.72

A 2013 Cochrane review73 included 11trials involving 1090 infants with mild tomoderate disease in both inpatient andemergency settings. There were 6 studiesinvolving 500 inpatients providing data

for the analysis of LOS with an aggregate1-day decrease reported, a result largelydriven by the inclusion of 3 studies withrelatively long mean length of stay of 5 to6 days. The analysis of effect on clinicalscores included 7 studies involving 640patients in both inpatient and outpatientsettings and demonstrated incrementalpositive effect with each day posttreat-ment from day 1 to day 3 (–0.88 MD onday 1, –1.32 MD on day 2, and –1.51 MDon day 3). Finally, Zhang et al73 found noeffect on hospitalization rates in thepooled analysis of 1 outpatient and 3 EDstudies including 380 total patients.

Several randomized trials published afterthe Cochrane review period further in-formed the current guideline recommen-dation. Four trials evaluated admissionrates from the ED, 3 using 3% saline and 1using 7% saline.74–76 A single trial76 dem-onstrated a difference in admission ratesfrom the ED favoring hypertonic saline,although the other 4 studies were con-cordant with the studies included in theCochrane review. However, contrary to thestudies included in the Cochrane review,none of the more recent trials reportedimprovement in LOS and, when added tothe older studies for an updated meta-analysis, they significantly attenuate thesummary estimate of the effect on LOS.76,77

Most of the trials included in the Cochranereview occurred in settings with typicalLOS of more than 3 days in their usualcare arms. Hence, the significant decreasein LOS noted by Zhang et al73 may not begeneralizable to the United States wherethe average LOS is 2.4 days.10 One otherongoing clinical trial performed in theUnited States, unpublished except in ab-stract form, further supports the obser-vation that hypertonic saline does notdecrease LOS in settings where expectedstays are less than 3 days.78

The preponderance of the evidence sug-gests that 3% saline is safe and effective atimproving symptoms of mild to moderatebronchiolitis after 24 hours of use andreducing hospital LOS in settings in which


B

Benefits Avoiding adverse effects, suchas wheezing and excesssecretions, cost

Risk, harm, cost NoneBenefit-harmassessment



None


None


None


B

Benefits May shorten hospital stay if LOSis >72 h

Risk, harm, cost Adverse effects such aswheezing and excesssecretions; cost


Benefits outweigh harms forlonger hospital stays

Value judgments Anticipating an individualchild’s LOS is difficult. MostUS hospitals report anaverage LOS of <72 h forpatients with bronchiolitis.This weak recommendationapplies only if the averagelength of stay is >72 h


This weak recommendation isbased on an average LOS anddoes not address theindividual patient.


None

Exclusions NoneStrength WeakDifferences ofopinion

None


the duration of stay typically exceeds 3days. It has not been shown to be effectiveat reducing hospitalization in emergencysettings or in areas where the lengthof usage is brief. It has not beenstudied in intensive care settings,and most trials have included onlypatients with mild to moderate dis-ease. Most studies have used a 3%saline concentration, and most havecombined it with bronchodilatorswith each dose; however, there isretrospective evidence that the rateof adverse events is similar withoutbronchodilators,79 as well as pro-spective evidence extrapolated from2 trials without bronchodilators.79,80

A single study was performed in theambulatory outpatient setting81; how-ever, future studies in the United Statesshould focus on sustained usage onthe basis of pattern of effects dis-cerned in the available literature.

CORTICOSTEROIDS


Clinicians should not administersystemic corticosteroids to infantswith a diagnosis of bronchiolitis inany setting (Evidence Quality: A;Recommendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).


Although there is good evidence ofbenefit from corticosteroids in other

respiratory diseases, such as asthmaand croup,82–84 the evidence on corti-costeroid use in bronchiolitis is nega-tive. The most recent Cochranesystematic review shows that cortico-steroids do not significantly reduceoutpatient admissions when comparedwith placebo (pooled risk ratio, 0.92;95% CI, 0.78 to 1.08; and risk ratio, 0.86;95% CI, 0.7 to 1.06, respectively) anddo not reduce LOS for inpatients (MD–0.18 days; 95% CI –0.39 to 0.04).85 Noother comparisons showed relevantdifferences for either primary or sec-ondary outcomes. This review con-tained 17 trials with 2596 participantsand included 2 large ED-based ran-domized trials, neither of which showedreductions in hospital admissions withtreatment with corticosteroids as com-pared with placebo.69,86

One of these large trials, the CanadianBronchiolitis Epinephrine Steroid Trial,however, did show a reduction in hos-pitalizations 7 days after treatment withcombined nebulized epinephrine andoral dexamethasone as compared withplacebo.69 Although an unadjusted ana-lysis showed a relative risk for hospi-talization of 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.95;P = .02) for combination therapy ascompared with placebo, adjustmentfor multiple comparison rendered theresult insignificant (P = .07). Theseresults have generated considerablecontroversy.87 Although there is nostandard recognized rationale for whycombination epinephrine and dexa-methasone would be synergistic ininfants with bronchiolitis, evidence inadults and children older than 6years with asthma shows that addinginhaled long-acting β agonists tomoderate/high doses of inhaled cor-ticosteroids allows reduction of thecorticosteroid dose by, on average,60%.88 Basic science studies focusedon understanding the interaction be-tween β agonists and corticosteroidshave shown potential mechanisms for

why simultaneous administration ofthese drugs could be synergistic.89–92

However, other bronchiolitis trials ofcorticosteroids administered by us-ing fixed simultaneous bronchodila-tor regimens have not consistentlyshown benefit93–97; hence, a recommen-dation regarding the benefit of com-bined dexamethasone and epinephrinetherapy is premature.

The systematic review of cortico-steroids in children with bronchiolitiscited previously did not find any dif-ferences in short-term adverse eventsas compared with placebo.86 However,corticosteroid therapy may prolongviral shedding in patients with bron-chiolitis.17

In summary, a comprehensive sys-tematic review and large multicenterrandomized trials provide clear evi-dence that corticosteroids alone donot provide significant benefit tochildren with bronchiolitis. Evidencefor potential benefit of combinedcorticosteroid and agents with bothα- and β-agonist activity is at besttentative, and additional large trialsare needed to clarify whether thistherapy is effective.

Further, although there is no evidenceof short-term adverse effects fromcorticosteroid therapy, other thanprolonged viral shedding, in infantsand children with bronchiolitis, thereis inadequate evidence to be certainof safety.

OXYGEN


Clinicians may choose not to ad-minister supplemental oxygen if theoxyhemoglobin saturation exceeds90% in infants and children with adiagnosis of bronchiolitis (EvidenceQuality: D; Recommendation Strength:Weak Recommendation [based onlow-level evidence and reasoningfrom first principles]).

Aggregateevidence quality

A

Benefits No clinical benefit, avoidingadverse effects

Risk, harm, cost NoneBenefit-harm

assessmentBenefits outweigh harms

Value judgments NoneIntentional

vaguenessNone


None

Exclusions NoneStrength Strong recommendationDifferences of

opinionNone






Clinicians may choose not to usecontinuous pulse oximetry for in-fants and children with a diagnosisof bronchiolitis (Evidence Quality:C; Recommendation Strength: WeakRecommendation [based on lower-level evidence]).


Although oxygen saturation is a poorpredictor of respiratory distress, it is

associated closely with a perceivedneed for hospitalization in infants withbronchiolitis.98,99 Additionally, oxygensaturation has been implicated asa primary determinant of LOS inbronchiolitis.40,100,101

Physiologic data based on the oxyhe-moglobin dissociation curve (Fig 3)demonstrate that small increases inarterial partial pressure of oxygen areassociated with marked improvementin pulse oxygen saturation when thelatter is less than 90%; with pulse oxy-gen saturation readings greater than90% it takes very large elevations inarterial partial pressure of oxygen toaffect further increases. In infants andchildren with bronchiolitis, no data existto suggest such increases result in anyclinically significant difference in physi-ologic function, patient symptoms, orclinical outcomes. Although it is wellunderstood that acidosis, temperature,and 2,3-diphosphoglutarate influencethe oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve,there has never been research todemonstrate how those influencespractically affect infants with hypox-emia. The risk of hypoxemia must beweighed against the risk of hospitali-zation when making any decisionsabout site of care. One study of hospi-talized children with bronchiolitis, forexample, noted a 10% adverse error ornear-miss rate for harm-causing inter-ventions.103 There are no studies on theeffect of short-term, brief periods ofhypoxemia such as may be seen inbronchiolitis. Transient hypoxemia iscommon in healthy infants.104 Travel ofhealthy children even to moderate alti-tudes of 1300 m results in transientsleep desaturation to an average of84% with no known adverse con-sequences.105 Although children withchronic hypoxemia do incur devel-opmental and behavioral problems,children who suffer intermittent hyp-oxemia from diseases such as asthma

do not have impaired intellectual abil-ities or behavioral disturbance.106–108

Supplemental oxygen provided for in-fants not requiring additional re-spiratory support is best initiated withnasal prongs, although exact mea-surement of fraction of inspired oxy-gen is unreliable with this method.109

Pulse oximetry is a convenient methodto assess the percentage of hemo-globin bound by oxygen in children.Pulse oximetry has been erroneouslyused in bronchiolitis as a proxy forrespiratory distress. Accuracy of pulseoximetry is poor, especially in the 76%to 90% range.110 Further, it has beenwell demonstrated that oxygen satu-ration has much less impact on re-spiratory drive than carbon dioxideconcentrations in the blood.111 Thereis very poor correlation between re-spiratory distress and oxygen satu-rations among infants with lowerrespiratory tract infections.112 Otherthan cyanosis, no published clinicalsign, model, or score accurately iden-tifies hypoxemic children.113

Among children admitted for bronchi-olitis, continuous pulse oximetry mea-surement is not well studied andpotentially problematic for children whodo not require oxygen. Transient desa-turation is a normal phenomenon inhealthy infants. In 1 study of 64 healthyinfants between 2 weeks and 6 monthsof age, 60% of these infants exhibiteda transient oxygen desaturation below90%, to values as low as 83%.105 A ret-rospective study of the role of continu-ous measurement of oxygenation ininfants hospitalized with bronchiolitisfound that 1 in 4 patients incur unnec-essarily prolonged hospitalization asa result of a perceived need for oxygenoutside of other symptoms40 and noevidence of benefit was found.

Pulse oximetry is prone to errors ofmeasurement. Families of infants hospi-talized with continuous pulse oximetersare exposed to frequent alarms that

Benefits Decreased hospitalizations,decreased LOS

Risk, harm, cost Hypoxemia, physiologic stress,prolonged LOS, increasedhospitalizations, increasedLOS, cost



Value judgments Oxyhemoglobin saturation>89% is adequate tooxygenate tissues; the riskof hypoxemia withoxyhemoglobin saturation>89% is minimal


None


Limited

Exclusions Children with acidosis or feverStrength Weak recommendation (based

on low-level evidence/reasoning from firstprinciples)

Differences ofopinion

None


C

Benefits Shorter LOS, decreased alarmfatigue, decreased cost

Risk, harm, cost Delayed detection of hypoxemia,delay in appropriate weaningof oxygen




None


Limited

Exclusions NoneStrength Weak recommendation (based

on lower level of evidence)Differences ofopinion

None


may negatively affect sleep. Alarm fa-tigue is recognized by The JointCommission as a contributor towardin-hospital morbidity and mortality.114

One adult study demonstrated verypoor documentation of hypoxemia al-erts by pulse oximetry, an indicatorof alarm fatigue.115 Pulse oximetryprobes can fall off easily, leading toinaccurate measurements and alarms.116

False reliance on pulse oximetry maylead to less careful monitoring of re-spiratory status. In one study, contin-uous pulse oximetry was associatedwith increased risk of minor adverseevents in infants admitted to a gen-eral ward.117 The pulse oximetry–monitored patients were found tohave less-effective surveillance of theirseverity of illness when controlling forother variables.

There are a number of new approachesto oxygen delivery in bronchiolitis, 2of which are home oxygen and high-frequency nasal cannula. There isemerging evidence for the role of homeoxygen in reducing LOS or admissionrate for infants with bronchiolitis, in-

cluding 2 randomized trials.118,119 Mostof the studies have been performed inareas of higher altitude, where pro-longed hypoxemia is a prime deter-minant of LOS in the hospital.120,121

Readmission rates may be moderatelyhigher in patients discharged withhome oxygen; however, overall hospitaluse may be reduced,122 although not inall settings.123 Concerns have beenraised that home pulse oximetry maycomplicate care or confuse families.124

Communication with follow-up physi-cians is important, because primarycare physicians may have difficulty de-termining safe pulse oximetry levelsfor discontinuation of oxygen.125 Addi-tionally, there may be an increaseddemand for follow-up outpatient visitsassociated with home oxygen use.124

Use of humidified, heated, high-flownasal cannula to deliver air-oxygenmixtures provides assistance to in-fants with bronchiolitis through mul-tiple proposed mechanisms.126 Thereis evidence that high-flow nasal can-nula improves physiologic measuresof respiratory effort and can generate

continuous positive airway pressurein bronchiolitis.127–130 Clinical evidencesuggests it reduces work of breath-ing131,132 and may decrease need forintubation,133–136 although studies aregenerally retrospective and small. Thetherapy has been studied in the ED136,137

and the general inpatient setting,134,138

as well as the ICU. The largest and mostrigorous retrospective study to datewas from Australia,138 which showeda decline in intubation rate in the sub-group of infants with bronchiolitis (n =330) from 37% to 7% after the intro-duction of high-flow nasal cannula,while the national registry intubationrate remained at 28%. A single pilotfor a randomized trial has been pub-lished to date.139 Although promising,the absence of any completed ran-domized trial of the efficacy of high-flownasal cannula in bronchiolitis precludesspecific recommendations on it use atpresent. Pneumothorax is a reportedcomplication.

CHEST PHYSIOTHERAPY


Clinicians should not use chest phys-iotherapy for infants and childrenwith a diagnosis of bronchiolitis (Evi-dence Quality: B; RecommendationStrength: Moderate Recommendation).


FIGURE 3Oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve showing percent saturation of hemoglobin at various partialpressures of oxygen (reproduced with permission from the educational Web site www.anaesthesiauk.com).102


B

Benefits Decreased stress fromtherapy, reduced cost




None


None


None




www.anaesthesiauk.com

www.anaesthesiauk.com

Airway edema, sloughing of respiratoryepithelium into airways, and general-ized hyperinflation of the lungs, coupledwith poorly developed collateral venti-lation, put infants with bronchiolitis atrisk for atelectasis. Although lobar at-electasis is not characteristic of thisdisease, chest radiographs may showevidence of subsegmental atelectasis,prompting clinicians to consider or-dering chest physiotherapy to promoteairway clearance. A Cochrane Review140

found 9 randomized controlled trialsthat evaluated chest physiotherapy inhospitalized patients with bronchiolitis.No clinical benefit was found by usingvibration or percussion (5 trials)141–144

or passive expiratory techniques (4 tri-als).145–148 Since that review, a study149

of the passive expiratory techniquefound a small, but significant reductionin duration of oxygen therapy, but noother benefits.

Suctioning of the nasopharynx to re-move secretions is a frequent practicein infants with bronchiolitis. Althoughsuctioning the nares may providetemporary relief of nasal congestionor upper airway obstruction, a retro-spective study reported that deepsuctioning150 was associated withlonger LOS in hospitalized infants 2to 12 months of age. The same studyalso noted that lapses of greaterthan 4 hours in noninvasive, externalnasal suctioning were also associ-ated with longer LOS. Currently, thereare insufficient data to make a rec-ommendation about suctioning, butit appears that routine use of “deep”suctioning151,153 may not be beneficial.

ANTIBACTERIALS


Clinicians should not administerantibacterial medications to infantsand children with a diagnosis ofbronchiolitis unless there is a con-comitant bacterial infection, or astrong suspicion of one. (Evidence

Quality: B; Recommendation Strength:Strong Recommendation).


Infants with bronchiolitis frequently re-ceive antibacterial therapy because offever,152 young age,153 and concern forsecondary bacterial infection.154 Earlyrandomized controlled trials155,156

showed no benefit from routine anti-bacterial therapy for children withbronchiolitis. Nonetheless, antibiotictherapy continues to be overused inyoung infants with bronchiolitis becauseof concern for an undetected bacterialinfection. Studies have shown that febrileinfants without an identifiable source offever have a risk of bacteremia that maybe as high as 7%. However, a child witha distinct viral syndrome, such asbronchiolitis, has a lower risk (muchless than 1%) of bacterial infection of thecerebrospinal fluid or blood.157

Ralston et al158 conducted a systematicreview of serious bacterial infections(SBIs) occurring in hospitalized febrileinfants between 30 and 90 days of agewith bronchiolitis. Instances of bacter-emia or meningitis were extremely rare.

Enteritis was not evaluated. Urinary tractinfection occurred at a rate of approxi-mately 1%, but asymptomatic bacteri-uria may have explained this finding. Theauthors concluded routine screening forSBI among hospitalized febrile infantswith bronchiolitis between 30 and 90days of age is not justified. Limited datasuggest the risk of bacterial infection inhospitalized infants with bronchiolitisyounger than 30 days of age is similar tothe risk in older infants. An abnormalwhite blood cell count is not useful forpredicting a concurrent SBI in infantsand young children hospitalized with RSVlower respiratory tract infection.159 Sev-eral retrospective studies support thisconclusion.160–166 Four prospective stud-ies of SBI in patients with bronchiolitisand/or RSV infections also demonstratedlow rates of SBI.167–171

Approximately 25% of hospitalized in-fants with bronchiolitis have radio-graphic evidence of atelectasis, and itmay be difficult to distinguish betweenatelectasis and bacterial infiltrate orconsolidation.169 Bacterial pneumoniain infants with bronchiolitis withoutconsolidation is unusual.170 Antibiotictherapy may be justified in some chil-dren with bronchiolitis who requireintubation and mechanical ventilationfor respiratory failure.172,173

Although acute otitis media (AOM) ininfants with bronchiolitis may be at-tributable to viruses, clinical featuresgenerally do not permit differentiation ofviral AOM from those with a bacterialcomponent.174 Two studies address thefrequency of AOM in patients withbronchiolitis. Andrade et al175 pro-spectively identified AOM in 62% of 42patients who presented with bronchi-olitis. AOM was present in 50% on entryto the study and developed in an addi-tional 12% within 10 days. A subsequentreport176 followed 150 children hospi-talized for bronchiolitis for the de-velopment of AOM. Seventy-nine (53%)developed AOM, two-thirds within the


B

Benefits Fewer adverse effects, lessresistance toantibacterial agents,lower cost




Strong suspicion is notspecifically definedand requires clinicianjudgment. An evaluationfor the source of possibleserious bacterial infectionshould be completedbefore antibiotic use


None

Exclusions NoneStrength Strong recommendationDifferences ofopinion

None


first 2 days of hospitalization. AOM didnot influence the clinical course orlaboratory findings of bronchiolitis. Thecurrent AAP guideline on AOM177 rec-ommends that a diagnosis of AOMshould include bulging of the tympanicmembrane. This is based on bulgingbeing the best indicator for the pres-ence of bacteria in multiple tympano-centesis studies and on 2 articlescomparing antibiotic to placebo ther-apy that used a bulging tympanicmembrane as a necessary part of thediagnosis.178,179 New studies are neededto determine the incidence of AOM inbronchiolitis by using the new criterionof bulging of the tympanic membrane.Refer to the AOM guideline180 for rec-ommendations regarding the manage-ment of AOM.

NUTRITION AND HYDRATION


Clinicians should administer naso-gastric or intravenous fluids forinfants with a diagnosis of bron-chiolitis who cannot maintain hy-dration orally (Evidence Quality: X;Recommendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).


The level of respiratory distressattributable to bronchiolitis guidesthe indications for fluid replacement.Conversely, food intake in the previous24 hours may be a predictor of oxygensaturation among infants with bron-

chiolitis. One study found that food in-take at less than 50% of normal for theprevious 24 hours is associated witha pulse oximetry value of <95%.180

Infants with mild respiratory distressmay require only observation, particu-larly if feeding remains unaffected.When the respiratory rate exceeds 60to 70 breaths per minute, feeding maybe compromised, particularly if nasalsecretions are copious. There is limitedevidence to suggest coordination ofbreathing with swallowing may beimpaired among infants with bron-chiolitis.181 These infants may developincreased nasal flaring, retractions,and prolonged expiratory wheezingwhen fed and may be at increased riskof aspiration.182

One study estimated that one-third ofinfants hospitalized for bronchiolitisrequire fluid replacement.183 Onecase series184 and 2 randomizedtrials,185,186 examined the compara-tive efficacy and safety of the in-travenous and nasogastric routesfor fluid replacement. A pilot trialin Israel that included 51 infantsyounger than 6 months demon-strated no significant differences inthe duration of oxygen needed ortime to full oral feeds between

infants receiving intravenous 5%dextrose in normal saline solutionor nasogastric breast milk or for-mula.187 Infants in the intravenousgroup had a shorter LOS (100 vs 120hours) but it was not statistically

significant. In a larger open ran-domized trial including infants be-tween 2 and 12 months of age andconducted in Australia and NewZealand, there were no significantdifferences in rates of admission toICUs, need for ventilatory support,and adverse events between 381infants assigned to nasogastric hy-dration and 378 infants assigned tointravenous hydration.188 There wasa difference of 4 hours in mean LOSbetween the intravenous group (82.2hours) and the nasogastric group(86.2 hours) that was not statisti-cally significant. The nasogastricroute had a higher success rate ofinsertion than the intravenousroute. Parental satisfaction scoresdid not differ between the in-travenous and nasogastric groups.These studies suggest that infantswho have difficulty feeding safelybecause of respiratory distress canreceive either intravenous or naso-gastric fluid replacement; however,more evidence is needed to increasethe strength of this recommendation.

The possibility of fluid retention re-lated to production of antidiuretichormone has been raised in patientswith bronchiolitis.187–189 Therefore,receipt of hypotonic fluid replace-ment and maintenance fluids mayincrease the risk of iatrogenic hypo-natremia in these infants. A recentmeta-analysis demonstrated that amonghospitalized children requiring main-tenance fluids, the use of hypotonicfluids was associated with significanthyponatremia compared with iso-tonic fluids in older children.190 Useof isotonic fluids, in general, appearsto be safer.

PREVENTION


Clinicians should not administerpalivizumab to otherwise healthy

Aggregate evidence quality XBenefits Maintaining hydrationRisk, harm, cost Risk of infection, risk of aspiration with nasogastric tube, discomfort,

hyponatremia, intravenous infiltration, overhydrationBenefit-harm assessment Benefits outweigh harmsValue judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences Shared decision as to which mode is usedExclusions NoneStrength Strong recommendationDifferences of opinion None




infants with a gestational age of 29weeks, 0 days or greater (EvidenceQuality: B; Recommendation Strength:Strong Recommendation).



Clinicians should administer pal-ivizumab during the first year oflife to infants with hemodynami-cally significant heart disease orchronic lung disease of prema-turity defined as preterm infants<32 weeks, 0 days’ gestation whorequire >21% oxygen for at leastthe first 28 days of life (EvidenceQuality: B; Recommendation Strength:Moderate Recommendation).


Key Action Statement 10c

Clinicians should administer a max-imum 5 monthly doses (15 mg/kg/dose) of palivizumab during theRSV season to infants who qualifyfor palivizumab in the first yearof life (Evidence Quality: B, Recom-mendation Strength: ModerateRecommendation).

Action Statement Profile KAS 10c

Detailed evidence to support the policystatement on palivizumab and thispalivizumab section can be found in thetechnical report on palivizumab.192

Palivizumab was licensed by the USFood and Drug Administration in June1998 largely on the basis of results of 1clinical trial.193 The results of a secondclinical trial among children with con-genital heart disease were reported inDecember 2003.194 No other prospec-tive, randomized, placebo-controlledtrials have been conducted in anysubgroup. Since licensure of pal-ivizumab, new peer-reviewed pub-lications provide greater insight intothe epidemiology of disease caused byRSV.195–197 As a result of new data, theBronchiolitis Guideline Committee andthe Committee on Infectious Diseaseshave updated recommendations foruse of prophylaxis.

PREMATURITY

Monthly palivizumab prophylaxis shouldbe restricted to infants born before 29weeks, 0 days’ gestation, except forinfants who qualify on the basis ofcongenital heart disease or chroniclung disease of prematurity. Datashow that infants born at or after 29weeks, 0 days’ gestation have an RSVhospitalization rate similar to the rateof full-term infants.11,198 Infants witha gestational age of 28 weeks, 6 daysor less who will be younger than 12months at the start of the RSV sea-son should receive a maximum of 5

monthly doses of palivizumab or untilthe end of the RSV season, whichevercomes first. Depending on the monthof birth, fewer than 5 monthly doses

Aggregate evidencequality

B

Benefits Reduced pain ofinjections, reduceduse of a medicationthat has shownminimal benefit,reduced adverseeffects, reducedvisits to health careprovider with lessexposure to illness

Risk, harm, cost Minimal increase in riskof RSV hospitalization

Benefit-harm assessment Benefits outweighharms

Value judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patientpreferences

Parents may choose tonot acceptpalivizumab

Exclusions Infants with chroniclung disease ofprematurity andhemodynamicallysignificant cardiacdisease (as describedin KAS 10b)

Strength RecommendationDifferences of opinion NoneNotes This KAS is harmonized

with the AAP policystatement onpalivizumab

Aggregate evidence quality BBenefits Reduced risk of RSV

hospitalizationRisk, harm, cost Injection pain;

increased risk ofillness fromincreased visits toclinician office orclinic; cost; sideeffects frompalivizumab


Value judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences Parents may choose

to not acceptpalivizumab

Exclusions NoneStrength Moderate

recommendationDifferences of opinion NoneNotes This KAS is

harmonized withthe AAP policystatement onpalivizumab191,192

Aggregate evidence quality BBenefits Reduced risk of hospitalization; reduced admission to ICURisk, harm, cost Injection pain; increased risk of illness from increased visits to clinician

office or clinic; cost; adverse effects of palivizumabBenefit-harm assessment Benefits outweigh harmsValue judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences NoneExclusions Fewer doses should be used if the bronchiolitis season ends before the

completion of 5 doses; if the child is hospitalized with a breakthrough RSV,monthly prophylaxis should be discontinued

Strength Moderate recommendationDifferences of opinion NoneNotes This KAS is harmonized with the AAP policy statement on palivizumab191,192


will provide protection for most in-fants for the duration of the season.

CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE

Despite the large number of subjectsenrolled, little benefit from pal-ivizumab prophylaxis was found inthe industry-sponsored cardiac studyamong infants in the cyanotic group(7.9% in control group versus 5.6% inpalivizumab group, or 23 fewer hos-pitalizations per1000 children; P =.285).197 In the acyanotic group (11.8%vs 5.0%), there were 68 fewer RSVhospitalizations per 1000 prophylaxisrecipients (P = .003).197,199,200

CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE OFPREMATURITY

Palivizumab prophylaxis should beadministered to infants and childrenyounger than 12 months who developchronic lung disease of prematurity,defined as a requirement for 28 daysof more than 21% oxygen beginningat birth. If a child meets these cri-teria and is in the first 24 months oflife and continues to require sup-plemental oxygen, diuretic therapy,or chronic corticosteroid therapywithin 6 months of the start of theRSV season, monthly prophylaxis shouldbe administered for the remainder ofthe season.

NUMBER OF DOSES

Community outbreaks of RSV diseaseusually begin in November or December,peak in January or February, and end bylate March or, at times, in April.4 Figure 1shows the 2011–2012 bronchiolitis sea-son, which is typical of most years.Because 5 monthly doses will providemore than 24 weeks of protective se-rum palivizumab concentration, admin-istration of more than 5 monthly dosesis not recommended within the conti-nental United States. For infants whoqualify for 5 monthly doses, initiation ofprophylaxis in November and continua-

tion for a total of 5 doses will provideprotection into April.201 If prophylaxis isinitiated in October, the fifth and finaldose should be administered in Febru-ary, and protection will last into Marchfor most children.

SECOND YEAR OF LIFE

Because of the low risk of RSV hospi-talization in the second year of life,palivizumab prophylaxis is not recom-mended for children in the second yearof life with the following exception.Children who satisfy the definition ofchronic lung disease of infancy andcontinue to require supplemental oxy-gen, chronic corticosteroid therapy,or diuretic therapy within 6 monthsof the onset of the second RSV sea-son may be considered for a secondseason of prophylaxis.

OTHER CONDITIONS

Insufficient data are available to rec-ommend routine use of prophylaxis inchildren with Down syndrome, cysticfibrosis, pulmonary abnormality, neu-romuscular disease, or immune com-promise.

Down Syndrome

Routine use of prophylaxis for childrenin the first year of life with Downsyndrome is not recommended unlessthe child qualifies because of cardiacdisease or prematurity.202

Cystic Fibrosis

Routine use of palivizumab prophylaxisin patients with cystic fibrosis is notrecommended.203,204 Available studiesindicate the incidence of RSV hospital-ization in children with cystic fibrosisis low and unlikely to be different fromchildren without cystic fibrosis. No ev-idence suggests a benefit from pal-ivizumab prophylaxis in patients withcystic fibrosis. A randomized clinicaltrial involving 186 children with cystic

fibrosis from 40 centers reported 1subject in each group was hospitalizedbecause of RSV infection. Although thisstudy was not powered for efficacy, noclinically meaningful differences inoutcome were reported.205 A survey ofcystic fibrosis center directors pub-lished in 2009 noted that palivizumabprophylaxis is not the standard of carefor patients with cystic fibrosis.206 Ifa neonate is diagnosed with cystic fi-brosis by newborn screening, RSVprophylaxis should not be adminis-tered if no other indications are pres-ent. A patient with cystic fibrosis withclinical evidence of chronic lung dis-ease in the first year of life may beconsidered for prophylaxis.

Neuromuscular Disease andPulmonary Abnormality

The risk of RSV hospitalization is notwell defined in children with pulmonaryabnormalities or neuromuscular dis-ease that impairs ability to clearsecretions from the lower airway be-cause of ineffective cough, recurrentgastroesophageal tract reflux, pulmo-nary malformations, tracheoesophagealfistula, upper airway conditions, orconditions requiring tracheostomy. Nodata on the relative risk of RSV hospi-talization are available for this cohort.Selected infants with disease or con-genital anomaly that impairs theirability to clear secretions from thelower airway because of ineffectivecough may be considered for pro-phylaxis during the first year of life.

Immunocompromised Children

Population-based data are not avail-able on the incidence or severity of RSVhospitalization in children who un-dergo solid organ or hematopoieticstem cell transplantation, receivechemotherapy, or are immunocom-promised because of other conditions.Prophylaxis may be considered forhematopoietic stem cell transplant




patients who undergo transplantationand are profoundly immunosup-pressed during the RSV season.207

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

Prophylaxis is not recommended forprevention of nosocomial RSV diseasein the NICU or hospital setting.208,209

No evidence suggests palivizumab isa cost-effective measure to preventrecurrent wheezing in children. Pro-phylaxis should not be administeredto reduce recurrent wheezing in lateryears.210,211

Monthly prophylaxis in Alaska Nativechildren who qualify should be de-termined by locally generated dataregarding season onset and end.

Continuation of monthly prophylaxisfor an infant or young child who ex-periences breakthrough RSV hospital-ization is not recommended.

HAND HYGIENE


All people should disinfect handsbefore and after direct contactwith patients, after contact withinanimate objects in the direct vi-cinity of the patient, and after re-moving gloves (Evidence Quality: B;Recommendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).



All people should use alcohol-basedrubs for hand decontamination whencaring for children with bronchioli-tis. When alcohol-based rubs arenot available, individuals shouldwash their hands with soap andwater (Evidence Quality: B; Recom-mendation Strength: Strong Rec-ommendation).


Efforts should be made to decrease thespread of RSV and other causativeagents of bronchiolitis in medicalsettings, especially in the hospital.Secretions from infected patients canbe found on beds, crib railings, ta-bletops, and toys.12 RSV, as well asmany other viruses, can survive betteron hard surfaces than on poroussurfaces or hands. It can remain in-fectious on counter tops for ≥6 hours,on gowns or paper tissues for 20to 30 minutes, and on skin for up to20 minutes.212

It has been shown that RSV can be carriedand spread to others on the hands of

caregivers.213 Studies have shown thathealth care workers have acquired in-fection by performing activities such asfeeding, diaper change, and playingwith the RSV-infected infant. Caregiverswho had contact only with surfacescontaminated with the infants’ secre-tions or touched inanimate objects inpatients’ rooms also acquired RSV. Inthese studies, health care workerscontaminated their hands (or gloves)with RSV and inoculated their oral orconjunctival mucosa.214 Frequent handwashing by health care workers hasbeen shown to reduce the spread ofRSV in the health care setting.215

The Centers for Disease Control andPrevention published an extensive re-view of the hand-hygiene literature andmade recommendations as to indica-tions for hand washing and handantisepsis.216 Among the recom-mendations are that hands should bedisinfected before and after directcontact with every patient, after con-tact with inanimate objects in the di-rect vicinity of the patient, and beforeputting on and after removing gloves.If hands are not visibly soiled, analcohol-based rub is preferred. Inguidelines published in 2009, theWorld Health Organization also rec-ommended alcohol-based hand-rubsas the standard for hand hygiene inhealth care.217 Specifically, systematicreviews show them to remove organ-isms more effectively, require lesstime, and irritate skin less often thanhand washing with soap or other anti-septic agents and water. The availabilityof bedside alcohol-based solutions in-creased compliance with hand hygieneamong health care workers.214

When caring for hospitalized childrenwith clinically diagnosed bronchioli-tis, strict adherence to hand de-contamination and use of personalprotective equipment (ie, gloves andgowns) can reduce the risk of cross-infection in the health care setting.215

Aggregate evidence quality BBenefits Decreased

transmissionof disease

Risk, harm, cost Possible handirritation


Value judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences NoneExclusions NoneStrength Strong

recommendationDifferences of opinion None

Aggregate evidence quality BBenefits Less hand irritationRisk, harm, cost If there is visible

dirt on thehands, handwashing isnecessary;alcohol-basedrubs are noteffective forClostridiumdifficile, presenta fire hazard,and have a slightincreased cost


Value judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences NoneExclusions NoneStrength Strong



Other methods of infection control inviral bronchiolitis include education ofpersonnel and family members, surveil-lance for the onset of RSV season, andwearing masks when anticipating expo-sure to aerosolized secretions whileperforming patient care activities. Pro-grams that implement the aforemen-tioned principles, in conjunction witheffective hand decontamination andcohorting of patients, have been shownto reduce the spread of RSV in thehealth care setting by 39% to 50%.218,219

TOBACCO SMOKE


Clinicians should inquire about theexposure of the infant or child totobacco smoke when assessinginfants and children for bron-chiolitis (Evidence Quality: C; Rec-ommendation Strength: ModerateRecommendation).



Clinicians should counsel care-givers about exposing the infant or

child to environmental tobaccosmoke and smoking cessationwhen assessing a child for bron-chiolitis (Evidence Quality: B; Rec-ommendation Strength: StrongRecommendation).


Tobacco smoke exposure increases therisk and severity of bronchiolitis. Stra-chan and Cook220 first delineated theeffects of environmental tobacco smokeon rates of lower respiratory tract dis-ease in infants in a meta-analysis in-cluding 40 studies. In a more recentsystematic review, Jones et al221 founda pooled odds ratio of 2.51 (95% CI 1.96to 3.21) for tobacco smoke exposureand bronchiolitis hospitalization amongthe 7 studies specific to the condition.Other investigators have consistentlyreported tobacco smoke exposureincreases both severity of illness andrisk of hospitalization for bronchioli-

tis.222–225 The AAP issued a technicalreport on the risks of secondhandsmoke in 2009. The report makes rec-ommendations regarding effective waysto eliminate or reduce secondhandsmoke exposure, including education ofparents.226

Despite our knowledge of this impor-tant risk factor, there is evidence tosuggest health care providers identifyfewer than half of children exposed totobacco smoke in the outpatient, in-patient, or ED settings.227–229 Further-more, there is evidence thatcounseling parents in these settings iswell received and has a measurableimpact. Rosen et al230 performed ameta-analysis of the effects of inter-ventions in pediatric settings on pa-rental cessation and found a pooledrisk ratio of 1.3 for cessation amongthe 18 studies reviewed.

In contrast to many of the otherrecommendations, protecting chil-dren from tobacco exposure isa recommendation that is primarilyimplemented outside of the clinicalsetting. As such, it is critical thatparents are fully educated about theimportance of not allowing smokingin the home and that smoke lingerson clothes and in the environmentfor prolonged periods.231 It shouldbe provided in plain language andin a respectful, culturally effectivemanner that is family centered, en-gages parents as partners in theirchild’s health, and factors in theirliteracy, health literacy, and primarylanguage needs.

BREASTFEEDING


Clinicians should encourage exclusivebreastfeeding for at least 6 monthsto decrease the morbidity of respi-ratory infections (Evidence Quality:Grade B; Recommendation Strength:Moderate Recommendation).

Aggregate evidence quality CBenefits Can identify infants

and children atrisk whosefamily maybenefit fromcounseling,predicting risk ofsevere disease

Risk, harm, cost Time to inquireBenefit-harm assessment Benefits outweigh

harmsValue judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences Parent may choose

to deny tobaccouse even thoughthey are, in fact,users



Aggregate evidence quality BBenefits Reinforces the

detrimentaleffects ofsmoking,potential todecreasesmoking

Risk, harm, cost Time to counselBenefit-harm assessment Benefits outweigh

harmsValue judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences Parents may choose

to ignorecounseling


recommendationDifferences of opinion NoneNotes Counseling for

tobacco smokepreventionshould begin inthe prenatalperiod andcontinue infamily-centeredcare and at allwell-infant visits





In 2012, the AAP presented a generalpolicy on breastfeeding.232 The policystatement was based on the provenbenefits of breastfeeding for at least 6months. Respiratory infections wereshown to be significantly less commonin breastfed children. A primary re-source was a meta-analysis from theAgency for Healthcare Research andQuality that showed an overall 72%reduction in the risk of hospitalizationsecondary to respiratory diseases ininfants who were exclusively breastfedfor 4 or more months compared withthose who were formula fed.233

The clinical evidence also supportsdecreased incidence and severity ofillness in breastfed infants with bron-chiolitis. Dornelles et al234 concludedthat the duration of exclusive breast-feeding was inversely related to thelength of oxygen use and the length ofhospital stay in previously healthyinfants with acute bronchiolitis. Ina large prospective study in Australia,Oddy et al235 showed that breastfeedingfor less than 6 months was associated

with an increased risk for 2 or moremedical visits and hospital admissionfor wheezing lower respiratory illness.In Japan, Nishimura et al236 lookedat 3 groups of RSV-positive infantsdefined as full, partial, or token breast-feeding. There were no significantdifferences in the hospitalization rateamong the 3 groups; however, therewere significant differences in theduration of hospitalization and therate of requiring oxygen therapy, bothfavoring breastfeeding.

FAMILY EDUCATION


Clinicians and nurses should edu-cate personnel and family mem-bers on evidence-based diagnosis,treatment, and prevention inbronchiolitis (Evidence Quality: C;observational studies; Recommen-dation Strength; Moderate Recom-mendation).


Shared decision-making with parentsabout diagnosis and treatment ofbronchiolitis is a key tenet of patient-centered care. Despite the absence ofeffective therapies for viral bronchi-olitis, caregiver education by cliniciansmay have a significant impact on carepatterns in the disease. Children withbronchiolitis typically suffer fromsymptoms for 2 to 3 weeks, andparents often seek care in multiplesettings during that time period.237

Given that children with RSV gener-ally shed virus for 1 to 2 weeks andfrom 30% to 70% of family membersmay become ill,238,239 education aboutprevention of transmission of diseaseis key. Restriction of visitors to new-borns during the respiratory virusseason should be considered. Con-sistent evidence suggests that pa-rental education is helpful in thepromotion of judicious use of anti-biotics and that clinicians may mis-interpret parental expectations abouttherapy unless the subject is openlydiscussed.240–242

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

� Better algorithms for predictingthe course of illness

� Impact of clinical score on patientoutcomes

� Evaluating different ethnic groupsand varying response to treat-ments

� Does epinephrine alone reduce ad-mission in outpatient settings?

� Additional studies on epinephrinein combination with dexametha-sone or other corticosteroids

� Hypertonic saline studies in theoutpatient setting and in in hospi-tals with shorter LOS

� More studies on nasogastric hy-dration

� More studies on tonicity of intrave-nous fluids

Aggregate evidence quality BBenefits May reduce the risk

of bronchiolitisand otherillnesses;multiple benefitsof breastfeedingunrelated tobronchiolitis

Risk, harm, cost NoneBenefit-harm assessment Benefits outweigh

risksValue judgments NoneIntentional vagueness NoneRole of patient preferences Parents may choose

to feed formularather thanbreastfeed


recommendationNotes Education on

breastfeedingshould begin inthe prenatalperiod

Aggregate evidence quality CBenefits Decreased

transmission ofdisease, benefitsof breastfeeding,promotion ofjudicious use ofantibiotics, risksof infant lungdamageattributable totobacco smoke

Risk, harm, cost Time to educateproperly


Value judgments NoneIntentional vagueness Personnel is not

specificallydefined butshould includeall people whoenter a patient’sroom

Role of patient preferences NoneExclusions NoneStrength Moderate



� Incidence of true AOM in bron-chiolitis by using 2013 guidelinedefinition

� More studies on deep suction-ing and nasopharyngeal suction-ing

� Strategies for monitoring oxygensaturation

� Use of home oxygen

� Appropriate cutoff for use of oxy-gen in high altitude

� Oxygen delivered by high-flow na-sal cannula

� RSV vaccine and antiviral agents

� Use of palivizumab in specialpopulations, such as cystic fib-rosis, neuromuscular diseases,Down syndrome, immune defi-ciency

� Emphasis on parent satisfaction/patient-centered outcomes in allresearch (ie, not LOS as the onlymeasure)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRONCHIOLITIS(OVERSIGHT BY THE COUNCIL ONQUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND PATIENTSAFETY, 2013–2014)Shawn L. Ralston, MD, FAAP: Chair, PediatricHospitalist (no financial conflicts; publishedresearch related to bronchiolitis)Allan S. Lieberthal, MD, FAAP: Chair, GeneralPediatrician with Expertise in Pulmonology (noconflicts)Brian K. Alverson, MD, FAAP: Pediatric Hos-pitalist, AAP Section on Hospital MedicineRepresentative (no conflicts)Jill E. Baley, MD, FAAP: Neonatal-PerinatalMedicine, AAP Committee on Fetus and New-born Representative (no conflicts)Anne M. Gadomski, MD, MPH, FAAP: GeneralPediatrician and Research Scientist (no financialconflicts; published research related to bronchi-olitis including Cochrane review of bronchodilators)David W. Johnson, MD, FAAP: Pediatric Emer-gency Medicine Physician (no financial conflicts;published research related to bronchiolitis)Michael J. Light, MD, FAAP: Pediatric Pulmo-nologist, AAP Section on Pediatric PulmonologyRepresentative (no conflicts)Nizar F. Maraqa, MD, FAAP: Pediatric In-fectious Disease Physician, AAP Section on In-fectious Diseases Representative (no conflicts)H. Cody Meissner, MD, FAAP: Pediatric In-fectious Disease Physician, AAP Committee on

Infectious Diseases Representative (no con-flicts)Eneida A. Mendonca, MD, PhD, FAAP, FACMI:Informatician/Academic Pediatric IntensiveCare Physician, Partnership for Policy Imple-mentation Representative (no conflicts)Kieran J. Phelan, MD, MSc: General Pedia-trician (no conflicts)Joseph J. Zorc, MD, MSCE, FAAP: PediatricEmergency Physician, AAP Section on EmergencyMedicine Representative (no financial conflicts;published research related to bronchiolitis)Danette Stanko-Lopp, MA, MPH: Methodolo-gist, Epidemiologist (no conflicts)Mark A. Brown, MD: Pediatric Pulmonologist,American Thoracic Society Liaison (no conflicts)Ian Nathanson, MD, FAAP: Pediatric Pulmo-nologist, American College of Chest PhysiciansLiaison (no conflicts)Elizabeth Rosenblum, MD: Academic FamilyPhysician, American Academy of Family Physi-cians liaison (no conflicts).Stephen Sayles, III, MD, FACEP: EmergencyMedicine Physician, American College ofEmergency Physicians Liaison (no conflicts)Sinsi Hernández-Cancio, JD: Parent/ConsumerRepresentative (no conflicts)

STAFFCaryn Davidson, MALinda Walsh, MAB

REFERENCES

1. American Academy of Pediatrics Sub-committee on Diagnosis and Managementof Bronchiolitis. Diagnosis and manage-ment of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1774–1793

2. Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality. Management of Bronchiolitis inInfants and Children. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 69. Rockville,MD: Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality; 2003. AHRQ Publication No. 03-E014

3. Mullins JA, Lamonte AC, Bresee JS,Anderson LJ. Substantial variability incommunity respiratory syncytial virusseason timing. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22(10):857–862

4. Centers for Disease Control and Pre-vention. Respiratory syncytial virus activ-ity—United States, July 2011-January2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(8):141–144

5. Greenough A, Cox S, Alexander J, et al.Health care utilisation of infants withchronic lung disease, related to hospi-

talisation for RSV infection. Arch Dis Child.2001;85(6):463–468

6. Parrott RH, Kim HW, Arrobio JO, et al.Epidemiology of respiratory syncytial vi-rus infection in Washington, D.C. II. In-fection and disease with respect to age,immunologic status, race and sex. Am JEpidemiol. 1973;98(4):289–300

7. Meissner HC. Selected populations at in-creased risk from respiratory syncytialvirus infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22(suppl 2):S40–S44, discussion S44–S45

8. Shay DK, Holman RC, Roosevelt GE, ClarkeMJ, Anderson LJ. Bronchiolitis-associatedmortality and estimates of respiratorysyncytial virus-associated deaths amongUS children, 1979-1997. J Infect Dis. 2001;183(1):16–22

9. Miller EK, Gebretsadik T, Carroll KN, et al.Viral etiologies of infant bronchiolitis,croup and upper respiratory illness dur-ing 4 consecutive years. Pediatr Infect DisJ. 2013;32(9):950–955

10. Hasegawa K, Tsugawa Y, Brown DF, Man-sbach JM, Camargo CA Jr. Trends in

bronchiolitis hospitalizations in the UnitedStates, 2000-2009. Pediatrics. 2013;132(1):28–36

11. Hall CB, Weinberg GA, Blumkin AK, et al.Respiratory syncytial virus-associatedhospitalizations among children lessthan 24 months of age. Pediatrics. 2013;132(2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/132/2/e341

12. Hall CB. Nosocomial respiratory syncy-tial virus infections: the “Cold War” hasnot ended. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(2):590–596

13. Stevens TP, Sinkin RA, Hall CB, ManiscalcoWM, McConnochie KM. Respiratory syncy-tial virus and premature infants born at32 weeks’ gestation or earlier: hospitali-zation and economic implications of pro-phylaxis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(1):55–61

14. American Academy of Pediatrics SteeringCommittee on Quality Improvement andManagement. Classifying recommendationsfor clinical practice guidelines. Pediatrics.2004;114(3):874–877




www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/132/2/e341


15. Ricart S, Marcos MA, Sarda M, et al.Clinical risk factors are more relevantthan respiratory viruses in predictingbronchiolitis severity. Pediatr Pulmonol.2013;48(5):456–463

16. Shaw KN, Bell LM, Sherman NH. Outpatientassessment of infants with bronchiolitis.Am J Dis Child. 1991;145(2):151–155

17. Hall CB, Powell KR, MacDonald NE, et al.Respiratory syncytial viral infection in chil-dren with compromised immune function.N Engl J Med. 1986;315(2):77–81

18. Mansbach JM, Piedra PA, Stevenson MD,et al; MARC-30 Investigators. Prospectivemulticenter study of children with bron-chiolitis requiring mechanical ventilation.Pediatrics. 2012;130(3). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/130/3/e492

19. Prescott WA Jr, Hutchinson DJ. Respira-tory syncytial virus prophylaxis in specialpopulations: is it something worth con-sidering in cystic fibrosis and immuno-suppression? J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther.2011;16(2):77–86

20. Armstrong D, Grimwood K, Carlin JB, et al.Severe viral respiratory infections in in-fants with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmo-nol. 1998;26(6):371–379

21. Alvarez AE, Marson FA, Bertuzzo CS, ArnsCW, Ribeiro JD. Epidemiological and ge-netic characteristics associated with theseverity of acute viral bronchiolitis byrespiratory syncytial virus. J Pediatr (RioJ). 2013;89(6):531–543

22. Iliff A, Lee VA. Pulse rate, respiratory rate,and body temperature of children be-tween two months and eighteen years ofage. Child Dev. 1952;23(4):237–245

23. Rogers MC. Respiratory monitoring. In:Rogers MC, Nichols DG, eds. Textbook ofPediatric Intensive Care. Baltimore, MD:Williams & Wilkins; 1996:332–333

24. Berman S, Simoes EA, Lanata C. Re-spiratory rate and pneumonia in infancy.Arch Dis Child. 1991;66(1):81–84

25. Fleming S, Thompson M, Stevens R, et al.Normal ranges of heart rate and respiratoryrate in children from birth to 18 years ofage: a systematic review of observationalstudies. Lancet. 2011;377(9770):1011–1018

26. Bonafide CP, Brady PW, Keren R, ConwayPH, Marsolo K, Daymont C. Development ofheart and respiratory rate percentilecurves for hospitalized children. Pediatrics.2013;131(4). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/131/4/e1150

27. Margolis P, Gadomski A. The rationalclinical examination. Does this infant havepneumonia? JAMA. 1998;279(4):308–313

28. Mahabee-Gittens EM, Grupp-Phelan J,Brody AS, et al. Identifying children with

pneumonia in the emergency department.Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2005;44(5):427–435

29. Brooks AM, McBride JT, McConnochie KM,Aviram M, Long C, Hall CB. Predicting de-terioration in previously healthy infantshospitalized with respiratory syncytial vi-rus infection. Pediatrics. 1999;104(3 pt 1):463–467

30. Neuman MI, Monuteaux MC, Scully KJ,Bachur RG. Prediction of pneumonia ina pediatric emergency department. Pedi-atrics. 2011;128(2):246–253

31. Shah S, Bachur R, Kim D, Neuman MI. Lackof predictive value of tachypnea in thediagnosis of pneumonia in children. PediatrInfect Dis J. 2010;29(5):406–409

32. Mansbach JM, McAdam AJ, Clark S, et al.Prospective multicenter study of the viraletiology of bronchiolitis in the emergencydepartment. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(2):111–118

33. Mansbach JM, Piedra PA, Teach SJ, et al;MARC-30 Investigators. Prospective multi-center study of viral etiology and hospitallength of stay in children with severebronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2012;166(8):700–706

34. Navas L, Wang E, de Carvalho V, RobinsonJ; Pediatric Investigators CollaborativeNetwork on Infections in Canada. Im-proved outcome of respiratory syncytialvirus infection in a high-risk hospitalizedpopulation of Canadian children. JPediatr. 1992;121(3):348–354

35. Wang EE, Law BJ, Stephens D. PediatricInvestigators Collaborative Network onInfections in Canada (PICNIC) prospectivestudy of risk factors and outcomes inpatients hospitalized with respiratorysyncytial viral lower respiratory tract in-fection. J Pediatr. 1995;126(2):212–219

36. Chan PW, Lok FY, Khatijah SB. Risk factorsfor hypoxemia and respiratory failure inrespiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis.Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health.2002;33(4):806–810

37. Roback MG, Baskin MN. Failure of oxygensaturation and clinical assessment topredict which patients with bronchiolitisdischarged from the emergency depart-ment will return requiring admission.Pediatr Emerg Care. 1997;13(1):9–11

38. Lowell DI, Lister G, Von Koss H, McCarthy P.Wheezing in infants: the response to epi-nephrine. Pediatrics. 1987;79(6):939–945

39. Destino L, Weisgerber MC, Soung P, et al.Validity of respiratory scores in bron-chiolitis. Hosp Pediatr. 2012;2(4):202–209

40. Schroeder AR, Marmor AK, Pantell RH,Newman TB. Impact of pulse oximetryand oxygen therapy on length of stay in

bronchiolitis hospitalizations. Arch PediatrAdolesc Med. 2004;158(6):527–530

41. Dawson KP, Long A, Kennedy J, MogridgeN. The chest radiograph in acute bron-chiolitis. J Paediatr Child Health. 1990;26(4):209–211

42. Schroeder AR, Mansbach JM, StevensonM, et al. Apnea in children hospitalized withbronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5). Avail-able at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/132/5/e1194

43. Ralston S, Hill V. Incidence of apnea ininfants hospitalized with respiratory syn-cytial virus bronchiolitis: a systematic re-view. J Pediatr. 2009;155(5):728–733

44. Willwerth BM, Harper MB, Greenes DS.Identifying hospitalized infants who havebronchiolitis and are at high risk for ap-nea. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;48(4):441–447

45. García CG, Bhore R, Soriano-Fallas A, et al.Risk factors in children hospitalized withRSV bronchiolitis versus non-RSV bron-chiolitis. Pediatrics. 2010;126(6). Availableat: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/126/6/e1453

46. Swingler GH, Hussey GD, Zwarenstein M.Randomised controlled trial of clinicaloutcome after chest radiograph in am-bulatory acute lower-respiratory infectionin children. Lancet. 1998;351(9100):404–408

47. Schuh S, Lalani A, Allen U, et al. Evaluationof the utility of radiography in acutebronchiolitis. J Pediatr. 2007;150(4):429–433

48. Kellner JD, Ohlsson A, Gadomski AM, WangEE. Efficacy of bronchodilator therapy inbronchiolitis. A meta-analysis. Arch PediatrAdolesc Med. 1996;150(11):1166–1172

49. Flores G, Horwitz RI. Efficacy of beta2-agonists in bronchiolitis: a reappraisaland meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 1997;100(2pt 1):233–239

50. Hartling L, Wiebe N, Russell K, Patel H,Klassen TP. A meta-analysis of randomizedcontrolled trials evaluating the efficacy ofepinephrine for the treatment of acuteviral bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr AdolescMed. 2003;157(10):957–964

51. King VJ, Viswanathan M, Bordley WC, et al.Pharmacologic treatment of bronchiolitisin infants and children: a systematic re-view. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(2):127–137

52. Zorc JJ, Hall CB. Bronchiolitis: recent evi-dence on diagnosis and management.Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):342–349

53. Wainwright C. Acute viral bronchiolitis inchildren—a very common condition withfew therapeutic options. Paediatr RespirRev. 2010;11(1):39–45, quiz 45










54. Walsh P, Caldwell J, McQuillan KK, Friese S,Robbins D, Rothenberg SJ. Comparison ofnebulized epinephrine to albuterol inbronchiolitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(4):305–313

55. Scarlett EE, Walker S, Rovitelli A, Ren CL.Tidal breathing responses to albuteroland normal saline in infants with viralbronchiolitis. Pediatr Allergy ImmunolPulmonol. 2012;25(4):220–225

56. Gadomski AM, Scribani MB. Bronchodila-tors for bronchiolitis. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev. 2014;(6):CD001266

57. Mallol J, Barrueto L, Girardi G, et al. Use ofnebulized bronchodilators in infants under 1year of age: analysis of four forms of ther-apy. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1987;3(5):298–303

58. Lines DR, Kattampallil JS, Liston P. Efficacyof nebulized salbutamol in bronchiolitis.Pediatr Rev Commun. 1990;5(2):121–129

59. Alario AJ, Lewander WJ, Dennehy P, SeiferR, Mansell AL. The efficacy of nebulizedmetaproterenol in wheezing infants andyoung children. Am J Dis Child. 1992;146(4):412–418

60. Chavasse RJPG, Seddon P, Bara A, McKeanMC. Short acting beta2-agonists for re-current wheeze in children under twoyears of age. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2009;(2):CD002873

61. Totapally BR, Demerci C, Zureikat G, NolanB. Tidal breathing flow-volume loops inbronchiolitis in infancy: the effect ofalbuterol [ISRCTN47364493]. Crit Care.2002;6(2):160–165

62. Levin DL, Garg A, Hall LJ, Slogic S, JarvisJD, Leiter JC. A prospective randomizedcontrolled blinded study of three bron-chodilators in infants with respiratorysyncytial virus bronchiolitis on mechani-cal ventilation. Pediatr Crit Care Med.2008;9(6):598–604

63. Bjornson C, Russell K, Vandermeer B,Klassen TP, Johnson DW. Nebulized epi-nephrine for croup in children. CochraneDatabase Syst Rev. 2013;(10):CD006619

64. Hartling L, Fernandes RM, Bialy L, et al.Steroids and bronchodilators for acutebronchiolitis in the first two years of life:systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ.2011;342:d1714

65. Wainwright C, Altamirano L, Cheney M,et al. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of nebulized epineph-rine in infants with acute bronchiolitis. NEngl J Med. 2003;349(1):27–35

66. Patel H, Gouin S, Platt RW. Randomized,double-blind, placebo-controlled trial oforal albuterol in infants with mild-to-moderate acute viral bronchiolitis. JPediatr. 2003;142(5):509–514

67. Skjerven HO, Hunderi JO, Brügmann-Pieper SK, et al. Racemic adrenaline andinhalation strategies in acute bronchioli-tis. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(24):2286–2293

68. Plint AC, Johnson DW, Patel H, et al; Pedi-atric Emergency Research Canada (PERC).Epinephrine and dexamethasone in chil-dren with bronchiolitis. N Engl J Med.2009;360(20):2079–2089

69. Wark PA, McDonald V, Jones AP. Nebulisedhypertonic saline for cystic fibrosis. CochraneDatabase Syst Rev. 2005;(3):CD001506

70. Daviskas E, Anderson SD, Gonda I, et al.Inhalation of hypertonic saline aerosolenhances mucociliary clearance in asth-matic and healthy subjects. Eur Respir J.1996;9(4):725–732

71. Sood N, Bennett WD, Zeman K, et al. In-creasing concentration of inhaled salinewith or without amiloride: effect onmucociliary clearance in normal subjects.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167(2):158–163

72. Mandelberg A, Amirav I. Hypertonic salineor high volume normal saline for viralbronchiolitis: mechanisms and rationale.Pediatr Pulmonol. 2010;45(1):36–40

73. Zhang L, Mendoza-Sassi RA, Wainwright C,Klassen TP. Nebulized hypertonic salinesolution for acute bronchiolitis in infants.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD006458

74. Jacobs JD, Foster M, Wan J, Pershad J. 7%Hypertonic saline in acute bronchiolitis:a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics.2014;133(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/133/1/e8

75. Wu S, Baker C, Lang ME, et al. Nebulizedhypertonic saline for bronchiolitis: a ran-domized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(7):657–663

76. Florin TA, Shaw KN, Kittick M, Yakscoe S,Zorc JJ. Nebulized hypertonic saline forbronchiolitis in the emergency depart-ment: a randomized clinical trial. JAMAPediatr. 2014;168(7):664–670

77. Sharma BS, Gupta MK, Rafik SP. Hypertonic(3%) saline vs 0.93% saline nebulization foracute viral bronchiolitis: a randomizedcontrolled trial. Indian Pediatr. 2013;50(8):743–747

78. Silver AH. Randomized controlled trial ofthe efficacy of nebulized 3% saline withoutbronchodilators for infants admitted withbronchiolitis: preliminary data [abstr E-PAS2014:2952.685]. Paper presented at:Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meet-ing; May 3–6, 2014; Vancouver, British Co-lumbia, Canada

79. Ralston S, Hill V, Martinez M. Nebulizedhypertonic saline without adjunctive

bronchodilators for children with bron-chiolitis. Pediatrics. 2010;126(3). Availableat: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/126/3/e520

80. Luo Z, Liu E, Luo J, et al. Nebulized hyper-tonic saline/salbutamol solution treatmentin hospitalized children with mild to mod-erate bronchiolitis. Pediatr Int. 2010;52(2):199–202

81. Sarrell EM, Tal G, Witzling M, et al. Nebu-lized 3% hypertonic saline solution treat-ment in ambulatory children with viralbronchiolitis decreases symptoms. Chest.2002;122(6):2015–2020

82. Rowe BH, Spooner C, Ducharme FM,Bretzlaff JA, Bota GW. Early emergencydepartment treatment of acute asthmawith systemic corticosteroids. CochraneDatabase Syst Rev. 2001;(1):CD002178

83. Smith M, Iqbal S, Elliott TM, Everard M,Rowe BH. Corticosteroids for hospitalisedchildren with acute asthma. CochraneDatabase Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD002886

84. Russell KF, Liang Y, O’Gorman K, JohnsonDW, Klassen TP. Glucocorticoids for croup.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):CD001955

85. Fernandes RM, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B,et al. Glucocorticoids for acute viralbronchiolitis in infants and young chil-dren. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(6):CD004878

86. Corneli HM, Zorc JJ, Mahajan P, et al;Bronchiolitis Study Group of the PediatricEmergency Care Applied Research Net-work (PECARN). A multicenter, random-ized, controlled trial of dexamethasonefor bronchiolitis [published correctionappears in N Engl J Med 2008;359(18):1972]. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):331–339

87. Frey U, von Mutius E. The challenge ofmanaging wheezing in infants. N Engl JMed. 2009;360(20):2130–2133

88. Gibson PG, Powell H, Ducharme F. Long-actingbeta2-agonists as an inhaled corticosteroid-sparing agent for chronic asthma in adultsand children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2005;(4):CD005076

89. Barnes PJ. Scientific rationale for usinga single inhaler for asthma control. EurRespir J. 2007;29(3):587–595

90. Giembycz MA, Kaur M, Leigh R, Newton R.A Holy Grail of asthma management: to-ward understanding how long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists enhance theclinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids.Br J Pharmacol. 2008;153(6):1090–1104

91. Kaur M, Chivers JE, Giembycz MA, NewtonR. Long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonistssynergistically enhance glucocorticoid-dependent transcription in human airway








epithelial and smooth muscle cells. MolPharmacol. 2008;73(1):203–214

92. Holden NS, Bell MJ, Rider CF, et al. β2-Adrenoceptor agonist-induced RGS2 ex-pression is a genomic mechanism ofbronchoprotection that is enhanced byglucocorticoids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2011;108(49):19713–19718

93. Schuh S, Coates AL, Binnie R, et al. Efficacyof oral dexamethasone in outpatients withacute bronchiolitis. J Pediatr. 2002;140(1):27–32

94. Bentur L, Shoseyov D, Feigenbaum D,Gorichovsky Y, Bibi H. Dexamethasoneinhalations in RSV bronchiolitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Acta Pae-diatr. 2005;94(7):866–871

95. Kuyucu S, Unal S, Kuyucu N, Yilgor E. Ad-ditive effects of dexamethasone in nebu-lized salbutamol or L-epinephrine treatedinfants with acute bronchiolitis. PediatrInt. 2004;46(5):539–544

96. Mesquita M, Castro-Rodríguez JA, Hei-nichen L, Fariña E, Iramain R. Single oraldose of dexamethasone in outpatientswith bronchiolitis: a placebo controlledtrial. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2009;37(2):63–67

97. Alansari K, Sakran M, Davidson BL, IbrahimK, Alrefai M, Zakaria I. Oral dexamethasonefor bronchiolitis: a randomized trial. Pe-diatrics. 2013;132(4). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/132/4/e810

98. Mallory MD, Shay DK, Garrett J, BordleyWC. Bronchiolitis management prefer-ences and the influence of pulse oximetryand respiratory rate on the decision toadmit. Pediatrics. 2003;111(1). Available at:www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/111/1/e45

99. Corneli HM, Zorc JJ, Holubkov R, et al;Bronchiolitis Study Group for the Pediat-ric Emergency Care Applied ResearchNetwork. Bronchiolitis: clinical character-istics associated with hospitalization andlength of stay. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012;28(2):99–103

100. Unger S, Cunningham S. Effect of oxygensupplementation on length of stay forinfants hospitalized with acute viralbronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2008;121(3):470–475

101. Cunningham S, McMurray A. Observationalstudy of two oxygen saturation targets fordischarge in bronchiolitis. Arch Dis Child.2012;97(4):361–363

102. Anaesthesia UK. Oxygen dissociation curve.Available at: http://www.anaesthesiauk.com/SearchRender.aspx?DocId=1419&Index=D%3a\dtSearch\UserData\AUK&HitCount=

19&hits=4+5+d+e+23+24+37+58+59+a7+a8+14a+14b+17e+180+181+1a9+1aa+1d4Accessed July 15, 2014

103. McBride SC, Chiang VW, Goldmann DA,Landrigan CP. Preventable adverse eventsin infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis.Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):603–608

104. Hunt CE, Corwin MJ, Lister G, et al; Col-laborative Home Infant Monitoring Evalu-ation (CHIME) Study Group. Longitudinalassessment of hemoglobin oxygen satu-ration in healthy infants during the first 6months of age. J Pediatr. 1999;135(5):580–586

105. Gavlak JC, Stocks J, Laverty A, et al. TheYoung Everest Study: preliminary report ofchanges in sleep and cerebral blood flowvelocity during slow ascent to altitude inunacclimatised children. Arch Dis Child.2013;98(5):356–362

106. O’Neil SL, Barysh N, Setear SJ. Deter-mining school programming needs ofspecial population groups: a study ofasthmatic children. J Sch Health. 1985;55(6):237–239

107. Bender BG, Belleau L, Fukuhara JT, MrazekDA, Strunk RC. Psychomotor adaptation inchildren with severe chronic asthma. Pe-diatrics. 1987;79(5):723–727

108. Rietveld S, Colland VT. The impact of se-vere asthma on schoolchildren. J Asthma.1999;36(5):409–417

109. Sung V, Massie J, Hochmann MA, CarlinJB, Jamsen K, Robertson CF. Estimatinginspired oxygen concentration deliveredby nasal prongs in children with bron-chiolitis. J Paediatr Child Health. 2008;44(1-2):14–18

110. Ross PA, Newth CJL, Khemani RG. Accuracyof pulse oximetry in children. Pediatrics.2014;133(1):22–29

111. Hasselbalch KA. Neutralitatsregulation undreizbarkeit des atemzentrums in ihrenWirkungen auf die koklensaurespannungdes Blutes. Biochem Ztschr. 1912;46:403–439

112. Wang EE, Milner RA, Navas L, Maj H. Ob-server agreement for respiratory signsand oximetry in infants hospitalized withlower respiratory infections. Am RevRespir Dis. 1992;145(1):106–109

113. Rojas MX, Granados Rugeles C, Charry-Anzola LP. Oxygen therapy for lower re-spiratory tract infections in childrenbetween 3 months and 15 years of age.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):CD005975

114. Mitka M. Joint commission warns ofalarm fatigue: multitude of alarms frommonitoring devices problematic. JAMA.2013;309(22):2315–2316

115. Bowton DL, Scuderi PE, Harris L, HaponikEF. Pulse oximetry monitoring outside theintensive care unit: progress or problem?Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(6):450–454

116. Groothuis JR, Gutierrez KM, Lauer BA. Re-spiratory syncytial virus infection in chil-dren with bronchopulmonary dysplasia.Pediatrics. 1988;82(2):199–203

117. Voepel-Lewis T, Pechlavanidis E, Burke C,Talsma AN. Nursing surveillance moder-ates the relationship between staffinglevels and pediatric postoperative seriousadverse events: a nested case-control study.Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(7):905–913

118. Bajaj L, Turner CG, Bothner J. A random-ized trial of home oxygen therapy from theemergency department for acute bron-chiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;117(3):633–640

119. Tie SW, Hall GL, Peter S, et al. Home oxygenfor children with acute bronchiolitis. ArchDis Child. 2009;94(8):641–643

120. Halstead S, Roosevelt G, Deakyne S, Bajaj L.Discharged on supplemental oxygen froman emergency department in patients withbronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3). Avail-able at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/3/e605

121. Sandweiss DR, Mundorff MB, Hill T, et al.Decreasing hospital length of stay forbronchiolitis by using an observation unitand home oxygen therapy. JAMA Pediatr.2013;167(5):422–428

122. Flett KB, Breslin K, Braun PA, Hambidge SJ.Outpatient course and complications as-sociated with home oxygen therapy formild bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(5):769–775

123. Gauthier M, Vincent M, Morneau S, Che-valier I. Impact of home oxygen therapy onhospital stay for infants with acute bron-chiolitis. Eur J Pediatr. 2012;171(12):1839–1844

124. Bergman AB. Pulse oximetry: good tech-nology misapplied. Arch Pediatr AdolescMed. 2004;158(6):594–595

125. Sandweiss DR, Kadish HA, Campbell KA.Outpatient management of patients withbronchiolitis discharged home on oxygen:a survey of general pediatricians. ClinPediatr (Phila). 2012;51(5):442–446

126. Dysart K, Miller TL, Wolfson MR, ShafferTH. Research in high flow therapy: mech-anisms of action. Respir Med. 2009;103(10):1400–1405

127. Milési C, Baleine J, Matecki S, et al. Istreatment with a high flow nasal cannulaeffective in acute viral bronchiolitis? Aphysiologic study [published correctionappears in Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(6):1170]. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(6):1088–1094







http://www.anaesthesiauk.com/SearchRender.aspx?DocId=1419&tnqh_x0026;Index=D%3a\dtSearch\UserData\AUK&tnqh_x0026;HitCount=19&tnqh_x0026;hits=4+5+d+e+23+24+37+58+59+a7+a8+14a+14b+17e+180+181+1a9+1aa+1d4







128. Arora B, Mahajan P, Zidan MA, SethuramanU. Nasopharyngeal airway pressures inbronchiolitis patients treated with high-flownasal cannula oxygen therapy. PediatrEmerg Care. 2012;28(11):1179–1184

129. Spentzas T, Minarik M, Patters AB, Vinson B,Stidham G. Children with respiratory dis-tress treated with high-flow nasal cannula.J Intensive Care Med. 2009;24(5):323–328

130. Hegde S, Prodhan P. Serious air leaksyndrome complicating high-flow nasalcannula therapy: a report of 3 cases. Pe-diatrics. 2013;131(3). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/131/3/e939

131. Pham TM, O’Malley L, Mayfield S, Martin S,Schibler A. The effect of high flow nasalcannula therapy on the work of breathingin infants with bronchiolitis [publishedonline ahead of print May 21, 2014]. PediatrPulmonol. doi:doi:10.1002/ppul.23060

132. Bressan S, Balzani M, Krauss B, PettenazzoA, Zanconato S, Baraldi E. High-flow nasalcannula oxygen for bronchiolitis in a pe-diatric ward: a pilot study. Eur J Pediatr.2013;172(12):1649–1656

133. Ganu SS, Gautam A, Wilkins B, Egan J. In-crease in use of non-invasive ventilationfor infants with severe bronchiolitis isassociated with decline in intubationrates over a decade. Intensive Care Med.2012;38(7):1177–1183

134. Wing R, James C, Maranda LS, Armsby CC.Use of high-flow nasal cannula support inthe emergency department reduces theneed for intubation in pediatric acute re-spiratory insufficiency. Pediatr Emerg Care.2012;28(11):1117–1123

135. McKiernan C, Chua LC, Visintainer PF, AllenH. High flow nasal cannulae therapy ininfants with bronchiolitis. J Pediatr. 2010;156(4):634–638

136. Schibler A, Pham TM, Dunster KR, et al.Reduced intubation rates for infants afterintroduction of high-flow nasal prong ox-ygen delivery. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(5):847–852

137. Kelly GS, Simon HK, Sturm JJ. High-flownasal cannula use in children with respira-tory distress in the emergency department:predicting the need for subsequent in-tubation. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013;29(8):888–892

138. Kallappa C, Hufton M, Millen G, Ninan TK.Use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen(HFNCO) in infants with bronchiolitis ona paediatric ward: a 3-year experience.Arch Dis Child. 2014;99(8):790–791

139. Hilliard TN, Archer N, Laura H, et al. Pilotstudy of vapotherm oxygen delivery inmoderately severe bronchiolitis. Arch DisChild. 2012;97(2):182–183

140. Roqué i Figuls M, Giné-Garriga M, GranadosRugeles C, Perrotta C. Chest physiother-apy for acute bronchiolitis in paediatricpatients between 0 and 24 months old.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(2):CD004873

141. Aviram M, Damri A, Yekutielli C, BearmanJ, Tal A. Chest physiotherapy in acutebronchiolitis [abstract]. Eur Respir J. 1992;5(suppl 15):229–230

142. Webb MS, Martin JA, Cartlidge PH, Ng YK,Wright NA. Chest physiotherapy in acutebronchiolitis. Arch Dis Child. 1985;60(11):1078–1079

143. Nicholas KJ, Dhouieb MO, Marshal TG,Edmunds AT, Grant MB. An evaluation ofchest physiotherapy in the managementof acute bronchiolitis: changing clinicalpractice. Physiotherapy. 1999;85(12):669–674

144. Bohé L, Ferrero ME, Cuestas E, Polliotto L,Genoff M. Indications of conventionalchest physiotherapy in acute bronchiolitis[in Spanish]. Medicina (B Aires). 2004;64(3):198–200

145. De Córdoba F, Rodrigues M, Luque A,Cadrobbi C, Faria R, Solé D. Fisioterapiarespiratória em lactentes com bronquio-lite: realizar ou não? Mundo Saúde. 2008;32(2):183–188

146. Gajdos V, Katsahian S, Beydon N, et al.Effectiveness of chest physiotherapy ininfants hospitalized with acute bronchi-olitis: a multicenter, randomized, controlledtrial. PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000345

147. Rochat I, Leis P, Bouchardy M, et al. Chestphysiotherapy using passive expiratorytechniques does not reduce bronchiolitisseverity: a randomised controlled trial.Eur J Pediatr. 2012;171(3):457–462

148. Postiaux G, Louis J, Labasse HC, et al.Evaluation of an alternative chest physio-therapy method in infants with respira-tory syncytial virus bronchiolitis. RespirCare. 2011;56(7):989–994

149. Sánchez Bayle M, Martín Martín R, CanoFernández J, et al. Chest physiotherapyand bronchiolitis in the hospitalised in-fant. Double-blind clinical trial [in Span-ish]. An Pediatr (Barc). 2012;77(1):5–11

150. Mussman GM, Parker MW, Statile A,Sucharew H, Brady PW. Suctioning andlength of stay in infants hospitalized withbronchiolitis. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(5):414–421

151. Weisgerber MC, Lye PS, Li SH, et al. Factorspredicting prolonged hospital stay forinfants with bronchiolitis. J Hosp Med.2011;6(5):264–270

152. Nichol KP, Cherry JD. Bacterial-viral inter-relations in respiratory infections of chil-dren. N Engl J Med. 1967;277(13):667–672

153. Field CM, Connolly JH, Murtagh G, SlatteryCM, Turkington EE. Antibiotic treatment ofepidemic bronchiolitis—a double-blindtrial. BMJ. 1966;1(5479):83–85

154. Antonow JA, Hansen K, McKinstry CA,Byington CL. Sepsis evaluations in hospi-talized infants with bronchiolitis. PediatrInfect Dis J. 1998;17(3):231–236

155. Friis B, Andersen P, Brenøe E, et al. Anti-biotic treatment of pneumonia and bron-chiolitis. A prospective randomised study.Arch Dis Child. 1984;59(11):1038–1045

156. Greenes DS, Harper MB. Low risk of bac-teremia in febrile children with recogniz-able viral syndromes. Pediatr Infect Dis J.1999;18(3):258–261

157. Spurling GK, Doust J, Del Mar CB, ErikssonL. Antibiotics for bronchiolitis in children.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(6):CD005189

158. Ralston S, Hill V, Waters A. Occult seriousbacterial infection in infants younger than60 to 90 days with bronchiolitis: a sys-tematic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2011;165(10):951–956

159. Purcell K, Fergie J. Lack of usefulness ofan abnormal white blood cell count forpredicting a concurrent serious bacterialinfection in infants and young childrenhospitalized with respiratory syncytial vi-rus lower respiratory tract infection.Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2007;26(4):311–315

160. Purcell K, Fergie J. Concurrent seriousbacterial infections in 2396 infants andchildren hospitalized with respiratorysyncytial virus lower respiratory tractinfections. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2002;156(4):322–324

161. Purcell K, Fergie J. Concurrent seriousbacterial infections in 912 infants andchildren hospitalized for treatment of re-spiratory syncytial virus lower respiratorytract infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004;23(3):267–269

162. Kuppermann N, Bank DE, Walton EA, SenacMO Jr, McCaslin I. Risks for bacteremiaand urinary tract infections in young fe-brile children with bronchiolitis. ArchPediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151(12):1207–1214

163. Titus MO, Wright SW. Prevalence of seriousbacterial infections in febrile infants withrespiratory syncytial virus infection. Pe-diatrics. 2003;112(2):282–284

164. Melendez E, Harper MB. Utility of sepsisevaluation in infants 90 days of age oryounger with fever and clinical bronchi-olitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22(12):1053–1056

165. Hall CB, Powell KR, Schnabel KC, Gala CL,Pincus PH. Risk of secondary bacterial






infection in infants hospitalized with re-spiratory syncytial viral infection. J Pediatr.1988;113(2):266–271

166. Hall CB. Respiratory syncytial virus:a continuing culprit and conundrum. JPediatr. 1999;135(2 pt 2):2–7

167. Davies HD, Matlow A, Petric M, Glazier R,Wang EE. Prospective comparative studyof viral, bacterial and atypical organismsidentified in pneumonia and bronchiolitisin hospitalized Canadian infants. PediatrInfect Dis J. 1996;15(4):371–375

168. Levine DA, Platt SL, Dayan PS, et al; Mul-ticenter RSV-SBI Study Group of the Pedi-atric Emergency Medicine CollaborativeResearch Committee of the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics. Risk of seriousbacterial infection in young febrile infantswith respiratory syncytial virus infections.Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):1728–1734

169. Kellner JD, Ohlsson A, Gadomski AM, WangEE. Bronchodilators for bronchiolitis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD001266

170. Pinto LA, Pitrez PM, Luisi F, et al. Azi-thromycin therapy in hospitalized infantswith acute bronchiolitis is not associatedwith better clinical outcomes: a random-ized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Pediatr. 2012;161(6):1104–1108

171. McCallum GB, Morris PS, Chang AB. Anti-biotics for persistent cough or wheezefollowing acute bronchiolitis in children.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(12):CD009834

172. Levin D, Tribuzio M, Green-Wrzesinki T,et al. Empiric antibiotics are justified forinfants with RSV presenting with re-spiratory failure. Pediatr Crit Care. 2010;11(3):390–395

173. Thorburn K, Reddy V, Taylor N, van SaeneHK. High incidence of pulmonary bacterialco-infection in children with severe re-spiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchi-olitis. Thorax. 2006;61(7):611–615

174. Gomaa MA, Galal O, Mahmoud MS. Risk ofacute otitis media in relation to acutebronchiolitis in children. Int J PediatrOtorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(1):49–51

175. Andrade MA, Hoberman A, Glustein J,Paradise JL, Wald ER. Acute otitis media inchildren with bronchiolitis. Pediatrics.1998;101(4 pt 1):617–619

176. Shazberg G, Revel-Vilk S, Shoseyov D, Ben-Ami A, Klar A, Hurvitz H. The clinicalcourse of bronchiolitis associated withacute otitis media. Arch Dis Child. 2000;83(4):317–319

177. Lieberthal AS, Carroll AE, Chonmaitree T,et al. The diagnosis and management of

acute otitis media [published correctionappears in Pediatrics. 2014;133(2):346].Pediatrics. 2013;131(3). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/131/3/e964

178. Hoberman A, Paradise JL, Rockette HE,et al. Treatment of acute otitis media inchildren under 2 years of age. N Engl JMed. 2011;364(2):105–115

179. Tähtinen PA, Laine MK, Huovinen P, JalavaJ, Ruuskanen O, Ruohola A. A placebo-controlled trial of antimicrobial treat-ment for acute otitis media. N Engl J Med.2011;364(2):116–126

180. Corrard F, de La Rocque F, Martin E, et al.Food intake during the previous 24 h asa percentage of usual intake: a marker ofhypoxia in infants with bronchiolitis: anobservational, prospective, multicenterstudy. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:6

181. Pinnington LL, Smith CM, Ellis RE, MortonRE. Feeding efficiency and respiratory in-tegration in infants with acute viral bron-chiolitis. J Pediatr. 2000;137(4):523–526

182. Khoshoo V, Edell D. Previously healthyinfants may have increased risk of aspi-ration during respiratory syncytial viralbronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 1999;104(6):1389–1390

183. Kennedy N, Flanagan N. Is nasogastricfluid therapy a safe alternative to the in-travenous route in infants with bronchi-olitis? Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(3):320–321

184. Sammartino L, James D, Goutzamanis J,Lines D. Nasogastric rehydration doeshave a role in acute paediatric bronchi-olitis. J Paediatr Child Health. 2002;38(3):321–322

185. Kugelman A, Raibin K, Dabbah H, et al.Intravenous fluids versus gastric-tubefeeding in hospitalized infants with viralbronchiolitis: a randomized, prospectivepilot study. J Pediatr. 2013;162(3):640–642.e1

186. Oakley E, Borland M, Neutze J, et al; Paedi-atric Research in Emergency DepartmentsInternational Collaborative (PREDICT). Na-sogastric hydration versus intravenoushydration for infants with bronchiolitis:a randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med.2013;1(2):113–120

187. Gozal D, Colin AA, Jaffe M, Hochberg Z.Water, electrolyte, and endocrine homeo-stasis in infants with bronchiolitis. PediatrRes. 1990;27(2):204–209

188. van Steensel-Moll HA, Hazelzet JA, van derVoort E, Neijens HJ, Hackeng WH. Excessivesecretion of antidiuretic hormone ininfections with respiratory syncytial virus.Arch Dis Child. 1990;65(11):1237–1239

189. Rivers RP, Forsling ML, Olver RP. Inap-propriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone

in infants with respiratory infections. ArchDis Child. 1981;56(5):358–363

190. Wang J, Xu E, Xiao Y. Isotonic versus hy-potonic maintenance IV fluids in hospital-ized children: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics.2014;133(1):105–113

191. American Academy of Pediatrics, Com-mittee on Infectious Diseases and Bron-chiolitis Guidelines Committee. Policystatement: updated guidance for pal-ivizumab prophylaxis among infants andyoung children at increased risk of hos-pitalization for respiratory syncytial virusinfection. Pediatrics. 2014;134(2):415–420

192. American Academy of Pediatrics; Com-mittee on Infectious Diseases and Bron-chiolitis Guidelines Committee. Technicalreport: updated guidance for palivizumabprophylaxis among infants and youngchildren at increased risk of hospitaliza-tion for respiratory syncytial virus infec-tion. Pediatrics. 2014;134(2):e620–e638.

193. IMpact-RSV Study Group. Palivizumab,a humanized respiratory syncytial virusmonoclonal antibody, reduces hospitali-zation from respiratory syncytial virusinfection in high-risk infants. The IMpact-RSV Study Group. Pediatrics. 1998;102(3):531–537

194. Feltes TF, Cabalk AK, Meissner HC, et al.Palivizumab prophylaxis reduces hospitali-zation due to respiratory syncytial virus inyoung children with hemodynamically sig-nificant congenital heart disease. J Pediatr.2003;143(4):532–540

195. Andabaka T, Nickerson JW, Rojas-ReyesMX, Rueda JD, Bacic VV, Barsic B. Mono-clonal antibody for reducing the risk ofrespiratory syncytial virus infection inchildren. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2013;(4):CD006602

196. Wang D, Bayliss S, Meads C. Palivizumabfor immunoprophylaxis of respiratorysyncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitis in high-risk infants and young children: a sys-tematic review and additional economicmodelling of subgroup analyses. HealthTechnol Assess. 2011;1(5):iii–iv, 1–124

197. Hampp C, Kauf TL, Saidi AS, Winterstein AG.Cost-effectiveness of respiratory syncytialvirus prophylaxis in various indications.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(6):498–505

198. Hall CB, Weinberg GA, Iwane MK, et al. Theburden of respiratory syncytial virus in-fection in young children. N Engl J Med.2009;360(6):588–598

199. Dupenthaler A, Ammann RA, Gorgievski-Hrisoho M, et al. Low incidence of re-spiratory syncytial virus hospitalisationsin haemodynamically significant congenital


heart disease. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89:961–965

200. Geskey JM, Thomas NJ, Brummel GL. Pal-ivizumab in congenital heart disease:should international guidelines be re-vised? Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2007;7(11):1615–1620

201. Robbie GJ, Zhao L, Mondick J, LosonskyG, Roskos LK. Population pharmacoki-netics of palivizumab, a humanized anti-respiratory syncytial virus monoclonalantibody, in adults and children. Anti-microb Agents Chemother. 2012;56(9):4927–4936

202. Megged O, Schlesinger Y. Down syndromeand respiratory syncytial virus infection.Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010;29(7):672–673

203. Robinson KA, Odelola OA, Saldanha IJ,Mckoy NA. Palivizumab for prophylaxisagainst respiratory syncytial virus infectionin children with cystic fibrosis. CochraneDatabase Syst Rev. 2012;(2):CD007743

204. Winterstein AG, Eworuke E, Xu D, Schuler P.Palivizumab immunoprophylaxis effective-ness in children with cystic fibrosis.Pediatr Pulmonol. 2013;48(9):874–884

205. Cohen AH, Boron ML, Dingivan C. A phaseIV study of the safety of palivizumab forprophylaxis of RSV disease in childrenwith cystic fibrosis [abstract]. AmericanThoracic Society Abstracts, 2005 In-ternational Conference; 2005. p. A178

206. Giusti R. North American synagis pro-phylaxis survey. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(1):96–98

207. El Saleeby CM, Somes GW, DeVincenzo HP,Gaur AH. Risk factors for severe re-spiratory syncytial virus disease in chil-dren with cancer: the importance oflymphopenia and young age. Pediatrics.2008;121(2):235–243

208. Berger A, Obwegeser E, Aberle SW, Lang-gartner M, Popow-Kraupp T. Nosocomialtransmission of respiratory syncytial vi-rus in neonatal intensive care and in-termediate care units. Pediatr Infect Dis J.2010;29(7):669–670

209. Ohler KH, Pham JT. Comparison of thetiming of initial prophylactic palivizumabdosing on hospitalization of neonates forrespiratory syncytial virus. Am J HealthSyst Pharm. 2013;70(15):1342–1346

210. Blanken MO, Robers MM, Molenaar JM,et al. Respiratory syncytial virus and re-current wheeze in healthy preterminfants. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(19):1794–1799

211. Yoshihara S, Kusuda S, Mochizuki H, OkadaK, Nishima S, Simões EAF; C-CREW Inves-tigators. Effect of palivizumab prophylaxison subsequent recurrent wheezing in

preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):811–818

212. Hall CB, Douglas RG Jr, Geiman JM. Pos-sible transmission by fomites of re-spiratory syncytial virus. J Infect Dis. 1980;141(1):98–102

213. Sattar SA, Springthorpe VS, Tetro J,Vashon R, Keswick B. Hygienic hand anti-septics: should they not have activity andlabel claims against viruses? Am J InfectControl. 2002;30(6):355–372

214. Picheansathian W. A systematic review onthe effectiveness of alcohol-based so-lutions for hand hygiene. Int J Nurs Pract.2004;10(1):3–9

215. Hall CB. The spread of influenza and otherrespiratory viruses: complexities and con-jectures. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(3):353–359

216. Boyce JM, Pittet D; Healthcare InfectionControl Practices Advisory Committee;HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene TaskForce; Society for Healthcare Epidemiol-ogy of America/Association for Profes-sionals in Infection Control/InfectiousDiseases Society of America. Guideline forHand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings.Recommendations of the Healthcare In-fection Control Practices Advisory Com-mittee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSAHand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR RecommRep. 2002;51(RR-16):1–45, quiz CE1–CE4

217. World Health Organization. Guidelines onhand hygiene in health care. Geneva,Switzerland: World Health Organization;2009. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241597906_eng.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2014

218. Karanfil LV, Conlon M, Lykens K, et al. Re-ducing the rate of nosocomially transmittedrespiratory syncytial virus. [published cor-rection appears in Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(3):303] Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):91–96

219. Macartney KK, Gorelick MH, Manning ML,Hodinka RL, Bell LM. Nosocomial re-spiratory syncytial virus infections: thecost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of in-fection control. Pediatrics. 2000;106(3):520–526

220. Strachan DP, Cook DG. Health effects ofpassive smoking. 1. Parental smoking andlower respiratory illness in infancy and earlychildhood. Thorax. 1997;52(10):905–914

221. Jones LL, Hashim A, McKeever T, Cook DG,Britton J, Leonardi-Bee J. Parental andhousehold smoking and the increasedrisk of bronchitis, bronchiolitis and otherlower respiratory infections in infancy: sys-tematic review and meta-analysis. RespirRes. 2011;12:5

222. Bradley JP, Bacharier LB, Bonfiglio J, et al.Severity of respiratory syncytial virusbronchiolitis is affected by cigarettesmoke exposure and atopy. Pediatrics.2005;115(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/115/1/e7

223. Al-Shawwa B, Al-Huniti N, Weinberger M,Abu-Hasan M. Clinical and therapeuticvariables influencing hospitalisation forbronchiolitis in a community-based pae-diatric group practice. Prim Care Respir J.2007;16(2):93–97

224. Carroll KN, Gebretsadik T, Griffin MR, et al.Maternal asthma and maternal smokingare associated with increased risk ofbronchiolitis during infancy. Pediatrics.2007;119(6):1104–1112

225. Semple MG, Taylor-Robinson DC, Lane S,Smyth RL. Household tobacco smoke andadmission weight predict severe bron-chiolitis in infants independent of depri-vation: prospective cohort study. PLoSONE. 2011;6(7):e22425

226. Best D; Committee on EnvironmentalHealth; Committee on Native AmericanChild Health; Committee on Adolescence.From the American Academy of Pediatrics:Technical report—Secondhand and pre-natal tobacco smoke exposure. Pediatrics.2009;124(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/124/5/e1017

227. Wilson KM, Wesgate SC, Best D, BlumkinAK, Klein JD. Admission screening forsecondhand tobacco smoke exposure.Hosp Pediatr. 2012;2(1):26–33

228. Mahabee-Gittens M. Smoking in parents ofchildren with asthma and bronchiolitis ina pediatric emergency department.Pediatr Emerg Care. 2002;18(1):4–7

229. Dempsey DA, Meyers MJ, Oh SS, et al.Determination of tobacco smoke exposureby plasma cotinine levels in infants andchildren attending urban public hospitalclinics. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(9):851–856

230. Rosen LJ, Noach MB, Winickoff JP, HovellMF. Parental smoking cessation to protectyoung children: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):141–152

231. Matt GE, Quintana PJ, Destaillats H, et al.Thirdhand tobacco smoke: emerging evi-dence and arguments for a multidisciplin-ary research agenda. Environ HealthPerspect. 2011;119(9):1218–1226

232. Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeedingand the use of human milk. Pediatrics.2012;129(3). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/3/e827

233. Ip S, Chung M, Raman G, et al. Breast-feeding and Maternal and Infant HealthOutcomes in Developed Countries. Rockville,




http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241597906_eng.pdf







MD: Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality; 2007

234. Dornelles CT, Piva JP, Marostica PJ. Nutri-tional status, breastfeeding, and evolutionof infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. JHealth Popul Nutr. 2007;25(3):336–343

235. Oddy WH, Sly PD, de Klerk NH, et al. Breastfeeding and respiratory morbidity in in-fancy: a birth cohort study. Arch Dis Child.2003;88(3):224–228

236. Nishimura T, Suzue J, Kaji H. Breastfeedingreduces the severity of respiratory syn-cytial virus infection among young infants:a multi-center prospective study. PediatrInt. 2009;51(6):812–816

237. Petruzella FD, Gorelick MH. Duration ofillness in infants with bronchiolitis evalu-ated in the emergency department. Pedi-atrics. 2010;126(2):285–290

238. von Linstow ML, Eugen-Olsen J, Koch A,Winther TN, Westh H, Hogh B. Excretionpatterns of human metapneumovirus andrespiratory syncytial virus among youngchildren. Eur J Med Res. 2006;11(8):329–335

239. Sacri AS, De Serres G, Quach C, BoulianneN, Valiquette L, Skowronski DM. Trans-mission of acute gastroenteritis and re-spiratory illness from children to parents.Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33(6):583–588

240. Taylor JA, Kwan-Gett TS, McMahon EM Jr.Effectiveness of an educational interventionin modifying parental attitudes about anti-biotic usage in children. Pediatrics. 2003;111(5 pt 1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/111/5pt1/e548

241. Kuzujanakis M, Kleinman K, Rifas-Shiman S,Finkelstein JA. Correlates of parental anti-biotic knowledge, demand, and reporteduse. Ambul Pediatr. 2003;3(4):203–210

242. Mangione-Smith R, McGlynn EA, Elliott MN,Krogstad P, Brook RH. The relationshipbetween perceived parental expectationsand pediatrician antimicrobial prescribingbehavior. Pediatrics. 1999;103(4 pt 1):711–718


www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/111/5pt1/e548

www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/111/5pt1/e548

APPENDIX 1 SEARCH TERMS BYTOPIC

Introduction

MedLine

((“bronchiolitis”[MeSH]) OR (“respira-tory syncytial viruses”[MeSH]) NOT“bronchiolitis obliterans”[All Fields])

1. and exp Natural History/

2. and exp Epidemiology/

3. and (exp economics/ or exp“costs and cost analysis”/ orexp “cost allocation”/ or expcost-benefit analysis/ or exp“cost control”/ or exp “cost ofillness”/ or exp “cost sharing”/or exp health care costs/ orexp health expenditures/)

4. and exp Risk Factors/

Limit to English Language AND HumansAND (“all infant (birth to 23 months)”or “newborn infant (birth to 1 month)”or “infant (1 to 23 months)”)

CINAHL

(MM “Bronchiolitis+”) AND (“naturalhistory” OR (MM “Epidemiology”) OR(MM “Costs and Cost Analysis”) OR(MM “Risk Factors”))

The Cochrane Library

Bronchiolitis AND (epidemiology ORrisk factor OR cost)

Diagnosis/Severity

MedLine

exp BRONCHIOLITIS/di [Diagnosis] ORexp Bronchiolitis, Viral/di [Diagnosis]

limit to English Language AND (“allinfant (birth to 23 months)” or “new-born infant (birth to 1 month)” or“infant (1 to 23 months)”)

CINAHL

(MH “Bronchiolitis/DI”)


Bronchiolitis AND Diagnosis

*Upper Respiratory Infection Symp-toms

MedLine

(exp Bronchiolitis/ OR exp Bronchioli-tis, Viral/) AND exp *Respiratory TractInfections/

Limit to English Language

Limit to “all infant (birth to 23months)” OR “newborn infant (birthto 1 month)” OR “infant (1 to 23months)”)

CINAHL

(MM “Bronchiolitis+”) AND (MM “Re-spiratory Tract Infections+”)


Bronchiolitis AND Respiratory Infection

Inhalation Therapies

*Bronchodilators & Corticosteroids

MedLine


AND (exp Receptors, Adrenergic, β-2/OR exp Receptors, Adrenergic, β/ ORexp Receptors, Adrenergic, β-1/ OR βadrenergic*.mp. OR exp ALBUTEROL/OR levalbuterol.mp. OR exp EPINEPH-RINE/ OR exp Cholinergic Antagonists/OR exp IPRATROPIUM/ OR exp Anti-In-flammatory Agents/ OR ics.mp. OR in-haled corticosteroid*.mp. OR expAdrenal Cortex Hormones/ OR exp Leu-kotriene Antagonists/ OR montelukast.mp. OR exp Bronchodilator Agents/)

Limit to English Language AND (“allinfant (birth to 23 months)” or “new-born infant (birth to 1 month)” or“infant (1 to 23 months)”)

CINAHL

(MM “Bronchiolitis+”) AND (MM“Bronchodilator Agents”)


Bronchiolitis AND (bronchodilator ORepinephrine OR albuterol OR salbuta-mol OR corticosteroid OR steroid)

*Hypertonic Saline

MedLine


AND (exp Saline Solution, Hypertonic/OR (aerosolized saline.mp. OR (expAEROSOLS/ AND exp Sodium Chloride/))OR (exp Sodium Chloride/ AND exp“Nebulizers and Vaporizers”/) OR neb-ulized saline.mp.)


Limit to “all infant (birth to 23months)” OR “newborn infant (birth to1 month)” OR “infant (1 to 23 months)”)

CINAHL

(MM “Bronchiolitis+”) AND (MM “Sa-line Solution, Hypertonic”)


Bronchiolitis AND Hypertonic Saline

Oxygen

MedLine


1. AND (exp Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/OR supplemental oxygen.mp. OR ox-ygen saturation.mp. OR *Oxygen/ad,st [Administration & Dosage, Stand-ards] OR oxygen treatment.mp.)

2. AND (exp OXIMETRY/ OR oxi-meters.mp.) AND (exp “Reproduc-ibility of Results”/ OR reliability.mp. OR function.mp. OR technicalspecifications.mp.) OR (percuta-neous measurement*.mp. ORexp Blood Gas Analysis/)






CINAHL

(MM “Bronchiolitis+”) AND

((MM “Oxygen Therapy”) OR (MM “Ox-ygen+”) OR (MM “Oxygen Saturation”)OR (MM “Oximetry+”) OR (MM “PulseOximetry”) OR (MM “Blood Gas Moni-toring, Transcutaneous”))


Bronchiolitis AND (oxygen OR oximetry)

Chest Physiotherapy andSuctioning

MedLine


1. AND (Chest physiotherapy.mp. OR(exp Physical Therapy Techniques/AND exp Thorax/))

2. AND (Nasal Suction.mp. OR (expSuction/))



CINAHL

(MM “Bronchiolitis+”)

1. AND ((MH “Chest Physiotherapy(Saba CCC)”) OR (MH “Chest Phys-ical Therapy+”) OR (MH “ChestPhysiotherapy (Iowa NIC)”))

2. AND (MH “Suctioning, Nasopharyn-geal”)


Bronchiolitis AND (chest physiotherapyOR suction*)

Hydration

MedLine

((“bronchiolitis”[MeSH]) OR (“respi-ratory syncytial viruses”[MeSH])

NOT “bronchiolitis obliterans”[AllFields])

AND (exp Fluid Therapy/ AND (expinfusions, intravenous OR exp admin-istration, oral))


Limit to (“all infant (birth to 23months)” or “newborn infant (birth to1 month)” or “infant (1 to 23 months)”)

CINAHL


((MM “Fluid Therapy+”) OR (MM “Hy-dration Control (Saba CCC)”) OR (MM“Hydration (Iowa NOC)”))


Bronchiolitis AND (hydrat* OR fluid*)

SBI and Antibacterials

MedLine


AND

(exp Bacterial Infections/ OR exp Bac-terial Pneumonia/ OR exp Otitis Media/OR exp Meningitis/ OR exp *Anti-bac-terial Agents/ OR exp Sepsis/ OR expUrinary Tract Infections/ OR exp Bac-teremia/ OR exp Tracheitis OR seriousbacterial infection.mp.)



CINAHL


((MM “Pneumonia, Bacterial+”) OR(MM “Bacterial Infections+”) OR (MM“Otitis Media+”) OR (MM “Meningitis,Bacterial+”) OR (MM “AntiinfectiveAgents+”) OR (MM “Sepsis+”) OR (MM

“Urinary Tract Infections+”) OR (MM“Bacteremia”))


Bronchiolitis AND (serious bacterialinfection OR sepsis OR otitis media ORmeningitis OR urinary tract infection orbacteremia OR pneumonia OR anti-bacterial OR antimicrobial OR antibi-otic)

Hand Hygiene, Tobacco,Breastfeeding, Parent Education

MedLine


1. AND (exp Hand Disinfection/ ORhand decontamination.mp. ORhandwashing.mp.)

2. AND exp Tobacco/

3. AND (exp Breast Feeding/ ORexp Milk, Human/ OR exp BottleFeeding/)



CINAHL

(MM “Bronchiolitis+”)

1. AND (MH “Handwashing+”)

2. AND (MH “Tobacco+”)

3. AND (MH “Breast Feeding+” ORMH “Milk, Human+” OR MH “BottleFeeding+”)


Bronchiolitis

1. AND (Breast Feeding OR breast-feeding)

2. AND tobacco

3. AND (hand hygiene OR handwash-ing OR hand decontamination)


2. On page e1358, in the section on Spinosad (0.9% Suspension), the second sentenceshould have read: “It is not recommended for children younger than 6 monthsbecause it also contains benzyl alcohol.” (instead of “It is contraindicated…”).

3. On page e1358, in the section on Spinosad (0.9% Suspension), the lastsentence, which read, “Safety in children younger than 4 years has not beenestablished.” should have been deleted.

doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2696

Campbell et al. Critical Elements in the Medical Evaluation of Suspected ChildPhysical Abuse. Pediatrics. 2015;136(1):35–43

An error occurred in the article by Campbell et al, titled “Critical Elements in theMedical Evaluation of Suspected Child Physical Abuse” published in the July 2015issue of Pediatrics (2015;136[1]:35–43; doi:10.1542/peds.2014-4192). On page 41,in Table 2, under “Radiology” and “Skull Fracture,” this reads: “Head CT,a skeletalsurveya.” This text should have read: “Head CT,b skeletal surveyb” (footnotes wereincorrectly assigned).

doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2823

Ralston SL, Lieberthal AS, Meissner HC, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline: TheDiagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5):e1474–e1502

An error occurred in the American Academy of Pediatrics article, titled “ClinicalPractice Guideline: The Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Bronchiolitispublished in the November 2014 issue of Pediatrics (2014;134[5]:e1474–e1502).On page e1484, in the discussion after Key Action Statement 6b, in the fifthparagraph, the sentence reading “In 1 study of 64 healthy infants between 2 weeksand 6 months of age, 60% of these infants exhibited a transient oxygen desaturationbelow 90%, to values as low as 83%.” should have been attributed to reference104 (Hunt CE et al) instead of 105.

doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2862

Kurowski et al. Online Problem-Solving Therapy for Executive Dysfuntion AfterChild Traumatic Brain Injury. Pediatrics. 2013;132(1):e158–e166

An error occurred in the article by Kurowski et al, titled “Online Problem-SolvingTherapy for Executive Dysfunction After Child Traumatic Brain Injury” published in theJuly 2013 issue of Pediatrics (2013;132[1]:e158–e166; doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-4040). Onpage e163, under the Results section, in Tables 3 and 4, the baseline and 6 month

TABLE 3 Improvements From Baseline to Follow-up on the Global Executive Composite (GEC) in the CAPS Versus IRC Treatments in the Entire SampleOlder Teens (9th–12th Grade) and Younger Teens (6th–8th Grade)

CAPS (n 5 57) IRC (n 5 62a) F (df ) Pb

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Baseline 6 Month Change Baseline 6 Month Change

Entire Samplea 58.53 (10.11) 57.00 (11.40) 21.53 (8.75) 61.56 (10.74) 60.16 (12.16) 21.40 (7.43) 0.17 (118) 0.68Older Teensa 60.15 (10.51) 55.37 (11.44) 24.78 (6.66) 61.54 (10.98) 60.69 (10.94) 20.86 (5.98) 6.74 (61) 0.01Younger Teens 57.07 (9.69) 58.47 (11.37) 1.40 (9.46) 61.59 (10.63) 59.48 (13.77) 22.11 (9.06) 1.27 (56) 0.27

CAPS 5 Counselor Assisted Problem Solving, IRC 5 Internet Resource Comparisona The total study participants for IRC was 63; however, one participant did not completed the Behavioral Rating Inventory (BRIEF)-Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) Inhibit subscale, so theGEC could not calculated for this participant and they were excluded from this analysis.b P values apply to differences between CAPS and IRC groups as measured by general linear models after controlling for baseline scores.

782 ERRATA

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-2742; originally published online October 27, 2014;Pediatrics

Hernandez-CancioA. Brown, Ian Nathanson, Elizabeth Rosenblum, Stephen Sayles III and Sinsi

Eneida A. Mendonca, Kieran J. Phelan, Joseph J. Zorc, Danette Stanko-Lopp, MarkBaley, Anne M. Gadomski, David W. Johnson, Michael J. Light, Nizar F. Maraqa,

Shawn L. Ralston, Allan S. Lieberthal, H. Cody Meissner, Brian K. Alverson, Jill E.Bronchiolitis

Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of

/content/early/2014/10/21/peds.2014-2742

located on the World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Pointpublication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly


DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-2742; originally published online October 27, 2014;Pediatrics

Hernandez-CancioA. Brown, Ian Nathanson, Elizabeth Rosenblum, Stephen Sayles III and Sinsi

Eneida A. Mendonca, Kieran J. Phelan, Joseph J. Zorc, Danette Stanko-Lopp, MarkBaley, Anne M. Gadomski, David W. Johnson, Michael J. Light, Nizar F. Maraqa,

Shawn L. Ralston, Allan S. Lieberthal, H. Cody Meissner, Brian K. Alverson, Jill E.Bronchiolitis

Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of

ServicesUpdated Information &

/content/early/2014/10/21/peds.2014-2742including high resolution figures, can be found at:

Citations /content/early/2014/10/21/peds.2014-2742#related-urls

This article has been cited by 59 HighWire-hosted articles:

Errata

/content/136/4/782.2.full.htmlsee:An erratum has been published regarding this article. Please

Permissions & Licensing

/site/misc/Permissions.xhtmltables) or in its entirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures,

Reprints /site/misc/reprints.xhtml

Information about ordering reprints can be found online:

rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elkpublication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published, PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly


Documents

CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE ... - AFPA · CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE ClinicalPracticeGuideline:TheDiagnosis,Management, and Prevention of Bronchiolitis abstract