Effectiveness of Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants after Less Invasive Surfactant Administration

被引:2
|
作者
Mahmoud, Ramadan A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Sohag Univ, Dept Pediat, Fac Med, 15 Univ St, Sohag 82524, Egypt
来源
关键词
Infants; Non-invasive Ventilation; Premature; Surfactant; RESPIRATORY-DISTRESS-SYNDROME; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; NONINVASIVE VENTILATION; MANDATORY VENTILATION; WEEKS GESTATION; INTUBATION; THERAPY; SUPPORT; CPAP; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.22038/ijp.2018.34600.3047
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Background Non-invasive ventilation is increased used in preterm infants. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) after less invasive surfactant administration (LISA). Materials and Methods In this clinical trial, eighty two preterm infants admitted in neonatal intensive care unit, Sohag University Hospital, Egypt with a gestational age of 28-34 weeks, mean +/- standard deviation birth weight (1259.44 +/- 377.22 grams), suffering from RDS but not requiring intubation in the delivery room were included in the study. Forty one received nIPPV as an initial respiratory support (RS). If nIPPV failed, surfactant administration was given with the LISA approach and patients continued on nIPPV. This group was compared with a historical cohort group of 41 infants managed with nCPAP as an initial RS, and if nCPAP failed, the surfactant was given by LISA. Results There was no significant difference between the case and control group regarding the mean +/- SD gestational age or birth weight. When nIPPV was used as the primary RS in preterm infants with RDS compared to nCPAP, it had a significantly less nIPPV failure (31.71% versus 53.66%, P = 0.04), had significantly fewer infants who needed invasive ventilation within the first seven days of life (12.20% versus 34.14%, P = 0.03), and the total days of supplemental oxygen was less (9 (3-18) days versus 12 (6-34) days, P = 0.02). Conclusion In infants born at 28-34 weeks gestation, nIPPV, when used as the primary RS, reduced the need for invasive ventilation and the surfactant requirement within the LISA technique.
引用
收藏
页码:8915 / 8924
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) Vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP) after Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA) in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome
    Sabzehei, Mohammad Kazem
    Basiri, Behnaz
    Goli, Mojdeh Afkhami
    Solgi, Maryam Shokouhi
    Eghbalian, Fatemeh
    Moradi, Abbas
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS-MASHHAD, 2022, 10 (05): : 15972 - 15981
  • [2] Unsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants after extubation
    Kahramaner, Zelal
    Erdemir, Aydin
    Turkoglu, Ebru
    Cosar, Hese
    Sutcuoglu, Sumer
    Ozer, Esra Arun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2014, 27 (09): : 926 - 929
  • [3] 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):
  • [4] Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants
    Lemyre, Brigitte
    Laughon, Matthew
    Bose, Carl
    Davis, Peter G.
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2016, (12):
  • [5] 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
  • [6] Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation
    Lemyre, Brigitte
    Davis, Peter G.
    De Paoli, Antonio G.
    Kirpalani, Haresh
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2014, (09):
  • [7] Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation
    Lemyre, Brigitte
    Davis, Peter G.
    De Paoli, Antonio G.
    Kirpalani, Haresh
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, (02):
  • [8] Comparison of Early Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome
    Dursun, Mesut
    Uslu, Sinan
    Bulbul, Ali
    Celik, Muhittin
    Zubarioglu, Umut
    Bas, Evrim Kiray
    [J]. JOURNAL OF TROPICAL PEDIATRICS, 2019, 65 (04) : 352 - 360
  • [9] Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs. Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Initial Treatment After Birth in Extremely Preterm Infants
    Kostekci, Yasemin Ezgi
    Okulu, Emel
    Bakirarar, Batuhan
    Kraja, Elvis
    Erdeve, Omer
    Atasay, Begum
    Arsan, Saadet
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2022, 10
  • [10] Nasal continuous positive airway pressure and non-invasive ventilation in preterm infants
    Wald, M.
    [J]. MONATSSCHRIFT KINDERHEILKUNDE, 2014, 162 (09) : 778 - 784