Care of the Neonate on Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure: A Bedside Guide

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Guay ◽  
Dru Carvi ◽  
Deborah A. Raines ◽  
Wendy A. Luce

Respiratory distress continues to be a major cause of neonatal morbidity. Current neonatal practice recommends the use of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the immediate resuscitation and continued support of neonates of all gestations with clinical manifestations of respiratory distress. Despite the many short- and long-term benefits of nCPAP, many neonatal care units have met resistance in its routine use. Although there have been numerous recent publications investigating the use and outcomes of various modes of nCPAP delivery, surfactant administration, mechanical ventilation, and other forms of noninvasive respiratory support (high-flow nasal cannula, nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation), there has been a relative lack of publications addressing the practical bedside care of infants managed on nCPAP. Effective use of nCPAP requires a coordinated interprofessional team approach, ongoing assessment of the neonate, troubleshooting the nCPAP circuit, and parent education.

Author(s):  
Bayane Sabsabi ◽  
Ava Harrison ◽  
Laura Banfield ◽  
Amit Mukerji

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