. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jul 9.

Published in final edited form as: J Pulm Respir Med. 2014 Nov 24;4(6):216. doi: 10.4172/2161-105X.1000216

Table 3.

Comparison of interventions in the 5 HFT study centers and the VON database from 2009-2011.

Intervention	5 HFT Centers x/n (%) (LCL, UCL)^a	VON Database (%)
Use of surfactant	805/1363 (59.1) (56.4, 61.7)	62.4
nCPAP	413/1363 (30.3) (27.9, 32.8)	68.6
HFNC	999/1363 (73.3) (70.9, 75.6)	53.0^b
CMV	798/1363 (58.5) (55.9, 61.2)	64.6

CMV: Conventional mechanical ventilation; HFNC: High flow nasal cannula; HFT: High flow therapy; LCL: Lower confidence limit; n: population; nCPAP: nasal continuous positive airway pressure; UCL: Upper confidence limit; VON: Vermont Oxford Network; x: number of patients.

Exact 95% binomial confidence limits.

Note that high flow nasal cannula therapy is the VON definition (cannula flow rate above 1 L/min), so much of the HFNC use in the VON group is not how we define HFT (flow rates between 3 L/min and 8 L/min, commonly in the 4 L/min to 6 L/min range).