Reducing post-extubation failure rates in very preterm infants: is BiPAP better than CPAP?

被引:6
|
作者
Capasso, Letizia [1 ]
Borrelli, Angela Carla [1 ]
Cerullo, Julia [1 ]
Caiazzo, Maria Angela [1 ]
Coppola, Clara [1 ]
Palma, Marta [1 ]
Raimondi, Francesco [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Federico II, Dept Translat Med Sci, Div Neonatol, Via Pansini 5, I-80131 Naples, Italy
来源
关键词
BiPAP; CPAP; preterm neonates; RDS; non-invasive respiratory support; POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1080/14767058.2020.1749256
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background and Aim: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is currently used in neonates after mechanical ventilation though it may occasionally be associated with air leaks syndromes or it may fail to support the baby. The pressure difference offered by bilevel continuous positive distending pressure (BiPAP) respect to CPAP may be an advantage to the spontaneously breathing patient. In this study, we compared the efficacy of CPAP and BiPAP in the firstweek post-extubation in a series of very preterm infants. Methods: Inborn neonates less than 30 weeks of gestational age who were intubated shortly after birth from January 2011 to December 2017 were enrolled in a retrospective study. The attending clinician assessed the patients for non-invasive respiratory support readiness and allocated them to CPAP (PEEP 4-6 cmH(2)O) or BiPAP (PEEP 4-5 cmH(2)O, rate 10-40; Thigh 0.7-1.2; upper-pressure level 8-10 cmH(2)O). Both techniques were compared for preventing extubation failure within 7 days from extubation as defined per local protocol (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were: definitive failure of extubation, pneumothorax during non-invasive respiratory support, periventricular leukomalacia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, sepsis, patent ductus arteriosus and retinopathy of prematurity at discharge. Results: We enrolled 134 neonates; the CPAP group included 89 babies while 45 received BiPAP. Patients did not differ for their general characteristics (EG, antenatal steroids, incidence of SGA, maternal hypertension, surfactant replacement therapy). Short term extubation failure was significantly higher in the former group (23/89 in CPAP vs 5/45 in BiPAP; p = .005). No infant developed air leak syndrome. Secondary outcomes were comparable between groups. Multivariate analysis showed that on the whole population the extubation failure was correlated to the insurgence of late-onset sepsis. Conclusion: BiPAP safely reduced early extubation failure compared to CPAP in our cohort of very preterm neonates within 7 days from extubation.
引用
收藏
页码:1272 / 1277
页数:6
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [41] Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs noninvasive high frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV) as post-extubation support in preterm neonates: protocol for an assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
    Yuan Shi
    Daniele De Luca
    BMC Pediatrics, 19
  • [42] Neonatal brain magnetic resonance imaging before discharge is better than serial cranial ultrasound in predicting cerebral palsy in very low birth weight preterm infants
    Mirmiran, M
    Barnes, PD
    Keller, K
    Constantinou, JC
    Fleisher, BE
    Hintz, SR
    Ariagno, RL
    PEDIATRICS, 2004, 114 (04) : 992 - 998
  • [43] Bi-level Nasal Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Preterm Infants with Birth Weight Less Than 1500 g and Respiratory Distress Syndrome Following INSURE Treatment: A Two-center Randomized Controlled Trial
    Rui Pan
    Gao-yan Chen
    Jing Wang
    Zhao-xian Zhou
    Ping-ying Zhang
    Li-wen Chang
    Zhi-hui Rong
    Current Medical Science, 2021, 41 : 542 - 547
  • [44] Bi-level Nasal Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Preterm Infants with Birth Weight Less Than 1500 g and Respiratory Distress Syndrome Following INSURE Treatment: A Two-center Randomized Controlled Trial
    Pan, Rui
    Chen, Gao-yan
    Wang, Jing
    Zhou, Zhao-xian
    Zhang, Ping-ying
    Chang, Li-wen
    Rong, Zhi-hui
    CURRENT MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 41 (03) : 542 - 547