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
  • [41] Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Preterm Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Meneses, Jucille
    Bhandari, Vineet
    Alves, Joao G.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE, 2012, 166 (04): : 372 - 376
  • [42] A new device for administration of continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: comparison with a standard nasal CPAP continuous positive airway pressure system
    Daniele Trevisanuto
    Nicoletta Grazzina
    Nicoletta Doglioni
    Paola Ferrarese
    Francesco Marzari
    Vincenzo Zanardo
    [J]. Intensive Care Medicine, 2005, 31 : 859 - 864
  • [43] A new device for administration of continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: comparison with a standard nasal CPAP continuous positive airway pressure system
    Trevisanuto, D
    Grazzina, N
    Doglioni, N
    Ferrarese, P
    Marzari, F
    Zanardo, V
    [J]. INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2005, 31 (06) : 859 - 864
  • [44] Nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure/mandatory ventilation compared with continuous positive airway pressure for successful extubation and reducing the rate of apnea after extubation of preterm infants
    Zhou, Kai
    Pan, Jian
    Xu, Jianzhong
    Peng, Wansheng
    Wang, Jian
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2018, 11 (08): : 7583 - 7592
  • [45] Comparison of Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Treatments Using Parametric Survival Models
    Baneshi, Mohammad-Reza
    Bahmanbijari, Bahareh
    Mahdian, Reza
    Haji-Maghsoodi, Saeide
    Nikbakht, Roya
    [J]. IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2014, 24 (02) : 207 - 213
  • [46] Bubble devices versus other pressure sources for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants
    Prakash, Raj
    De Paoli, Antonio G.
    Davis, Peter G.
    Oddie, Sam J.
    McGuire, William
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (03):
  • [47] 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
  • [48] 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
  • [49] Extubation Success in Premature Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome Treated With Bi-Level Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Versus Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation
    Thomas, Patricia E.
    LeFlore, Judy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERINATAL & NEONATAL NURSING, 2013, 27 (04) : 328 - 334
  • [50] A Comparison between Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome
    Farhat, Ahmad Shah
    Mohammadzadeh, Ashraf
    Saeidi, Reza
    Noorizadeh, Shadi
    [J]. IRANIAN JOURNAL OF NEONATOLOGY, 2015, 6 (04) : 1 - 6