Response to the Letter to the Editor Titled “A Possible Alternative in the Treatment of Obstructive Airway Disease in Paediatric Intensive Care Patients”

Abstract

Dear Editor, We would like to sincerely thank the author(s) for referencing our study in their insightful letter to the editor, which we believe will make a valuable contribution to the literature. It is a great honor and motivation for all of our authors to receive interest in our work in such a short period of time. Our study was conducted simultaneously across 6 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) within Istanbul, Türkiye.1 The data included in the study consisted of demographic findings, characteristics of PICU follow-up, initial vital signs, blood parameters, respiratory support methods used, medical treatments, and mortality outcomes. A 10-year review of extracor- poreal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in PICUs reported that respiratory diseases were the most common reason for its application, with pneumonia and bronchiolitis being the leading causes in the pediatric age group.2 While non-invasive ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and ECMO are certainly options when high-flow nasal can- nula (HFNC) is insufficient, the centers involved in our study did not require ECMO during the study period. We attributed this outcome to the impact of the pandemic on the incidence and severity of viral infections.3,4 Additionally, the high cost and complication risks associated with ECMO may have contributed to its limited use.