Post-Resuscitation Care for Neonates Receiving Positive Pressure Ventilation at Birth

The purpose of this study is to develop a simulation-based ventilator training program for general ward nurses and identify its effects. Quantitative data were collected from 29 nurses (intervention group: 15, control group: 14), of which seven were interviewed with focus groups to collect qualitative data. The quantitative results revealed significant differences in ventilator-related knowledge (p = 0.029) and self-efficacy (p = 0.026) between the intervention and control groups. Moreover, three themes were derived from meaningful statements in the qualitative data: understanding psychophysical discomfort of the patient while applying the ventilator; helping in ventilator care; and establishing a future ventilator training strategy. The findings confirmed that the non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) simulation program is an effective method for improving the knowledge of ventilator nursing and self-efficacy and will be helpful in developing educational methods and strategies related to ventilator nursing for general ward nurses.

Download Full-text

Comparison of outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in patients with hypoxemia and various APACHE II scores after extubation

Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease ◽

10.1177/17534666211004235 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 ◽

pp. 175346662110042

Author(s):

Xiaoke Shang ◽

Yanggan Wang

Keyword(s):

Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Abdominal Distension ◽

Apache Ii ◽

Positive Pressure ◽

Apache Ii Score ◽

Subgroup Ii ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Group A ◽

Group B

Aims: The study aimed to compare and analyze the outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the treatment of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) who had extubation after weaning from mechanical ventilation. Methods: A total 120 patients with AHRF were enrolled into this study. These patients underwent tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were organized into two groups according to the score of Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II); group A: APACHE II score <12; group B: 12⩽ APACHE II score <24. Group A had 72 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (36 patients in each subgroup). Group B had 48 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (24 patients in each subgroup). General information, respiratory parameters, endpoint event, and comorbidities of adverse effect were compared and analyzed between the two subgroups. Results: The incidence of abdominal distension was significantly higher in patients treated with NPPV than in those treated with HFNC in group A (19.44% versus 0, p = 0.005) and group B (25% versus 0, p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between the HFNC- and NPPV-treated patients in blood pH, oxygenation index, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, respiratory rate, and blood lactic acid concentration in either group ( p > 0.05). Occurrence rate of re-intubation within 72 h of extubation was slightly, but not significantly, higher in NPPV-treated patients ( p > 0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant difference between HFNC and NPPV in preventing respiratory failure in patients with AHRF with an APACHE II score <24 after extubation. However, HFNC was superior to NPPV with less incidence of abdominal distension. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Download Full-text

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Apnea of Prematurity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

American Journal of Perinatology ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1722337 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Bayane Sabsabi ◽

Ava Harrison ◽

Laura Banfield ◽

Amit Mukerji

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽

Airway Pressure ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Positive Airway Pressure ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽

Positive Pressure ◽

Apnea Of Prematurity

Objective The study aimed to systematically review and analyze the impact of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on apnea of prematurity (AOP) in preterm neonates. Study Design In this systematic review and meta-analysis, experimental studies enrolling preterm infants comparing NIPPV (synchronized, nonsynchronized, and bi-level) and CPAP (all types) were searched in multiple databases and screened for the assessment of AOP. Primary outcome was AOP frequency per hour (as defined by authors of included studies). Results Out of 4,980 articles identified, 18 studies were included with eight studies contributing to the primary outcome. All studies had a high risk of bias, with significant heterogeneity in definition and measurement of AOP. There was no difference in AOPs per hour between NIPPV versus CPAP (weighted mean difference = −0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.76 to 0.37; eight studies, 456 patients). However, in a post hoc analysis evaluating the presence of any AOP (over varying time periods), the pooled odds ratio (OR) was lower with NIPPV (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.32–0.67; 10 studies, 872 patients). Conclusion NIPPV was not associated with decrease in AOP frequency, although demonstrated lower odds of developing any AOP. However, definite recommendations cannot be made based on the quality of the published evidence. Key Points

Download Full-text