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
  • [31] Neonatal nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation efficacy and lung pressure transmission
    Mukerji, A.
    Belik, J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2015, 35 (09) : 716 - 719
  • [32] A randomized controlled trial of nasal continuous positive airway pressure or intubation and ventilation for very preterm infants at birth: the coin trial
    Morley, C. J.
    Davis, P. G.
    Doyle, L. W.
    Brion, L.
    Hascoet, M.
    Carlin, J. B.
    [J]. ACTA PAEDIATRICA, 2007, 96 : 233 - 233
  • [33] Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants: Equipment, evidence, and synchronization
    Owen, Louise S.
    Manley, Brett J.
    [J]. SEMINARS IN FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2016, 21 (03): : 146 - 153
  • [34] Safety of bubble nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress
    John, Stephen C.
    Garg, Mehak
    Muttineni, Mounika
    Brearley, Ann M.
    Rao, Praveen
    Bhandari, Vineet
    Slusher, Tina
    Murki, Srinivas
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2024, 44 (9) : 1252 - 1257
  • [35] Reintubation Rate between Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation versus Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Neonates: A Parallel Randomized Controlled Trial
    Phatigomet, Manapat
    Thatrimontrichai, Anucha
    Maneenil, Gunlawadee
    Dissaneevate, Supaporn
    Janjindamai, Waricha
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2024, 41 (11) : 1504 - 1511
  • [36] Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants <30 weeks’ gestation: a randomized, controlled trial
    R Ramanathan
    K C Sekar
    M Rasmussen
    J Bhatia
    R F Soll
    [J]. Journal of Perinatology, 2012, 32 : 336 - 343
  • [37] Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Postextubation Support for Preterm Neonates in China A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Zhu, Xingwang
    Qi, HongBo
    Feng, Zhichun
    Shi, Yuan
    De Luca, Daniele
    [J]. JAMA PEDIATRICS, 2022, 176 (06) : 551 - 559
  • [38] 509 Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation Versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Neonatal Respiratory Failure: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study
    S Tang
    Y Shi
    J Shen
    Z Hu
    H Li
    [J]. Pediatric Research, 2010, 68 : 260 - 261
  • [39] COMPARISON OF NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE (CPAP) AND CPAP WITH INTERMITTENT PRESSURE IN PRETERM NEWBORNS
    Silveira, C. S.
    Melo, A. P.
    Leonardi, K. M.
    Zaia, J. E.
    Brunherotti, M. A.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, 2014, 49 : S79 - S79
  • [40] Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants
    Lemyre, Brigitte
    Deguise, Marc-Olivier
    Benson, Paige
    Kirpalani, Haresh
    Ekhaguere, Osayame A.
    Davis, Peter G.
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (07):