Nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To determine whether nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is more effective in preterm infants than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in reducing the rate of extubation failure following mechanical ventilation, and reducing the frequency of apnoea of prematurity and subsequent need for endotracheal intubation. Methods: Randomized trials of NIPPV versus NCPAP were sought and their data extracted and analysed independently by the authors using the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. The analysis used relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The three studies identified, comparing NIPPV with NCPAP in the postextubation period, all used synchronized NIPPV (SNIPPV), which was more effective than NCPAP in preventing failure of extubation [RR 0.21 (0.10, 0.45), RD -0.32 (-0.45, -0.20), NNT 3 (2, 5)]. Two studies compared NIPPV versus NCPAP for the treatment of apnoea of prematurity. Although meta-analysis was not possible one trial showed a reduction in apnoea frequency with NIPPV and the other a trend favouring NIPPV. Conclusion: SNIPPV is an effective method of augmenting the beneficial effects of NCPAP in preterm infants in the postextubation period. Further research is required to delineate the role of NIPPV in the management of apnoea of prematurity.