scholarly journals Randomized controlled trial comparing nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in premature infants after tracheal extubation

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 568-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Franco Rizzo Komatsu ◽  
Edna Maria de Albuquerque Diniz ◽  
Alexandre Archanjo Ferraro ◽  
Maria Esther Jurvest Rivero Ceccon ◽  
Flávio Adolfo Costa Vaz
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Premature Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Extubation Failure ◽  
Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Significant Difference

Summary Objective: To analyze the frequency of extubation failure in premature infants using conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) after extubation in groups subjected to nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nIPPV) and continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP). Method: Seventy-two premature infants with respiratory failure were studied, with a gestational age (GA) ≤ 36 weeks and birth weight (BW) > 750 g, who required tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. The study was controlled and randomized in order to ensure that the members of the groups used in the research were chosen at random. Randomization was performed at the time of extubation using sealed envelopes. Extubation failure was defined as the need for re-intubation and mechanical ventilation during the first 72 hours after extubation. Results: Among the 36 premature infants randomized to nIPPV, six (16.6%) presented extubation failure in comparison to 11 (30.5%) of the 36 premature infants randomized to nCPAP. There was no statistical difference between the two study groups regarding BW, GA, classification of the premature infant, and MV time. The main cause of extubation failure was the occurrence of apnea. Gastrointestinal and neurological complications did not occur in the premature infants participating in the study. Conclusion: We found that, despite the extubation failure of the group of premature infants submitted to nIPPV being numerically smaller than in premature infants submitted to nCPAP, there was no statistically significant difference between the two modes of ventilatory support after extubation.

Comparison of Early Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mesut Dursun ◽  
Sinan Uslu ◽  
Ali Bulbul ◽  
Muhittin Celik ◽  
Umut Zubarioglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure

Abstract Aims To compare the effect of early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in terms of the need for endotracheal ventilation in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants born between 24 and 32 gestational weeks. Methods This is a randomized, controlled, prospective, single-centered study. Forty-two infants were randomized to nIPPV and 42 comparable infants to nCPAP (birth weight 1356 ± 295 and 1359 ± 246 g and gestational age 29.2 ± 1.7 and 29.4 ± 1.5 weeks, respectively). Results The need for endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly lower in the nIPPV group than the nCPAP group (11.9% and 40.5%, respectively, p < 0.05). There were no differences in the duration of total nasal respiratory support, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia or other early morbidities. Conclusion nIPPV compared with nCPAP reduced the need for endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation in premature infants with RDS.

scholarly journals Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Prevention of Extubation Failure in Infants after Congenital Heart Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. E249-E255
Author(s):  
Yirong Zheng ◽  
Jian-Feng Liu ◽  
Yu-Qing Lei ◽  
Hong-Lin Wu ◽  
Hua Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Congenital Heart ◽  
Heart Surgery ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Extubation Failure ◽  
Congenital Heart Surgery ◽  
Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the application of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) in the respiratory weaning of infants after congenital heart surgery. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 63 infants who were extubated from mechanical ventilation after congenital heart surgery between January 2020 and September 2020. The data, including demographics, anatomic diagnosis, radiology and laboratory test results, and perioperative variables were recorded. Results: The extubation failure rate within 48 h after extubation was significantly lower in the SNIPPV group than in the nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) group. The PaO2 level and PaO2/FiO2 ratio within 48 h after extubation were higher in the SNIPPV group than in the NCPAP group (P < .05). Meanwhile, the PaCO2 level within 48 h was significantly lower in the SNIPPV group (P < .05). Compared with the NCPAP group, the median duration of postoperative noninvasive support and the duration from extubation to hospital discharge were shorter in the SNIPPV group; the total hospital cost was lower in the SNIPPV group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups concerning VAP, pneumothorax, feeding intolerance, sepsis, mortality, and other complications (P > .05). Conclusion: SNIPPV was shown to be superior to NCPAP in avoiding reintubation after congenital heart surgery in infants and significantly improved oxygenation and reduced PaCO2 retention after extubation. Further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of SNIPPV as a routine weaning strategy.

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

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document