A Three-Arm Randomized, Controlled Trial of Different Nasal Interfaces on the Safety and Efficacy of Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Newborns

被引:8
|
作者
Sardar, Syamal [1 ]
Pal, Somnath [1 ]
Ghosh, Moumita [2 ]
机构
[1] Inst Post Grad Med Educ & Res, Dept Neonatol, Kolkata, W Bengal, India
[2] Med Coll & Hosp, Dept Pediat, Neonatol Div, Kolkata, W Bengal, India
来源
INDIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS | 2022年 / 89卷 / 12期
关键词
Preterm; Noninvasive ventilation; Randomized trial; Nasal; AIRWAY PRESSURE; BINASAL PRONGS; INFANTS; MASK; INJURY;
D O I
10.1007/s12098-022-04095-2
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Objectives To compare the safety and efficacy of different nasal interfaces for delivering non invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preterm neonates. Methods In this three-arm parallel group stratified nonblinded randomized trial involving 210 preterm neonates the participants were randomly allocated to 'nasal mask', 'nasal prongs' and '4 hourly rotation of masks and prongs' groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. The groups were further stratified by gestational age (26-31(6/7) wk versus 32-36(6/7) wk) and indication of NIPPV (primary versus post extubation). Primary outcome was incidence of NIPPV failure within 72 h of initiation. Secondary outcomes were moderate/severe nasal injury, requirement of surfactant post randomization, total duration of respiratory support, duration of NICU stay, common neonatal morbidities and mortality. Results Primary analysis revealed that mask group was superior to prongs and rotation groups in terms of reduction in NIPPV failure within 72 h (8.6%, 24.3%, 22.8%, p = 0.033), decreased incidence of moderate/severe nasal injury (8.6%, 22.8%, 11.4% p = 0.038), decreased requirement of surfactant (20%, 38.6%, 42.8%, p = 0.01) and reduction in total duration of respiratory support [median (interquartile range)-6 (3, 10) d, 7.7 (4.9, 19.2) d, 7 (5.5, 18.5) d, p = 0.005]. Post hoc analysis confirmed that nasal mask was superior to prongs with respect to primary outcome (p = 0.012) and also reduced surfactant requirement compared to both prongs (p = 0.015) and rotation (p = 0.003) groups. Other pairwise comparisons were not statistically significant. Conclusions Administering NIPPV by nasal mask significantly decreases the incidence of NIPPV failure within first 72 h compared to nasal prongs and also reduces the requirement of surfactant compared to both prongs and rotation groups.
引用
收藏
页码:1195 / 1201
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Three-Arm Randomized, Controlled Trial of Different Nasal Interfaces on the Safety and Efficacy of Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Newborns
    Syamal Sardar
    Somnath Pal
    Moumita Ghosh
    [J]. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 2022, 89 : 1195 - 1201
  • [2] A randomized controlled trial of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in RDS
    Bhandari, V.
    Gavino, R. G.
    Nedrelow, J. H.
    Pallela, P.
    Salvador, A.
    Ehrenkranz, R. A.
    Brodsky, N. L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2007, 27 (11) : 697 - 703
  • [3] A randomized controlled trial of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in RDS
    V Bhandari
    R G Gavino
    J H Nedrelow
    P Pallela
    A Salvador
    R A Ehrenkranz
    N L Brodsky
    [J]. Journal of Perinatology, 2007, 27 : 697 - 703
  • [4] Nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation within the minimally invasive surfactant therapy approach in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial
    Oncel, Mehmet Yekta
    Arayici, Sema
    Uras, Nurdan
    Alyamac-Dizdar, Evrim
    Sari, Fatma Nur
    Karahan, Sevilay
    Canpolat, Fuat Emre
    Oguz, Serife Suna
    Dilmen, Ugur
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD-FETAL AND NEONATAL EDITION, 2016, 101 (04): : F323 - F328
  • [5] Questions Concerning Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
    Wang, Li
    Shi, Yuan
    [J]. JAMA PEDIATRICS, 2013, 167 (09) : 872 - 873
  • [6] Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation and Neonatal Outcomes
    Bhandari, Vineet
    Finer, Neil N.
    Ehrenkranz, Richard A.
    Saha, Shampa
    Das, Abhik
    Walsh, Michele C.
    Engle, William A.
    Van Meurs, Krisa P.
    [J]. PEDIATRICS, 2009, 124 (02) : 517 - 526
  • [7] Response of Preterm Infants to 2 Noninvasive Ventilatory Support Systems: Nasal CPAP and Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation
    Thome Silveira, Carmen Salum
    Leonardi, Kamila Maia
    Carvalho Freire Melo, Ana Paula
    Zaia, Jose Eduardo
    Andrade Brunherotti, Marisa Afonso
    [J]. RESPIRATORY CARE, 2015, 60 (12) : 1772 - 1776
  • [8] Questions Concerning Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Reply
    Meneses, Jucille
    Bhandari, Vineet
    Alves, Joao Guilherme
    [J]. JAMA PEDIATRICS, 2013, 167 (09) : 873 - 873
  • [9] Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation for Preterm Neonates: Synchronized or Not?
    Waitz, Markus
    Mense, Lars
    Kirpalani, Haresh
    Lemyre, Brigitte
    [J]. CLINICS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2016, 43 (04) : 799 - +
  • [10] NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE-PRESSURE VENTILATION OFFERS NO ADVANTAGES OVER NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE IN APNEA OF PREMATURITY
    RYAN, CA
    FINER, NN
    PETERS, KL
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISEASES OF CHILDREN, 1989, 143 (10): : 1196 - 1198