scholarly journals Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (HHHFNC) is not an effective method for initial treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) versus nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP)

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Ramin Iranpour ◽  
Amir-Mohammad Armanian ◽  
Mehdi Parvaneh ◽  
Nima Salehimehr ◽  
Awat Feizi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation

scholarly journals Continuous Positive Airway Pressure or High Flow Nasal Cannula for Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a Randomized Control Trail among Premature Infants

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahereh Esmaeilnia Shirvani ◽  
Fatemeh Sadat Nayeri ◽  
Mamak Shariat ◽  
Nikoo Nik Nafas ◽  
Seyyed Reza Mirjalili ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Premature Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Randomized Control

Abstract Background Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a life-threatening pulmonary disorder which mainly related to the premature infants. This study was conducted to evaluate Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) intervention effectiveness among premature infants with RDS. Methods Overall, 60 preterm infants with RDS at Valiasr Hospital, Tehran, during 2018 in this randomized control trail participated as CPAP and HFNC groups’ treatment. CPAP group received the nose with a peep of 4-6 centimeters from birth and continued to improve respiratory distress and the need for oxygen (O2). HFNC group received hot and humid flowing 2 to 5 liters/min in nose cannula, until respiratory distress and O2 needing to be resolved. Short clinical outcomes were compared between two groups. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 16 using t-test and logistic regression statistical tests at 95% significant level. Results There were no significant differences in Pneumothorax, PDA, chronic lung disease, surfactant injection, tracheal intubation, death, NEC, number of full feeding days, duration of hospitalization, and number of oxygen therapy days between the both CPAP and HFNC groups. Conclusions CPAP and HFNC techniques have the same efficacy in confronting RDS in neonates and there is no difference between the two techniques in terms of in-hospital clinical outcomes. However, considering the same efficacy of two methods and less invasive of HFNC compared with CPAP, we concluded this method can be recommended for the improvement of respiratory distress in newborns. Trial Registration Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials identifier IRCT20190623043988N1 Registered 2019-07-05.

scholarly journals The Effect of the Treatment with Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome in China: A Single-Center Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ge Zheng ◽  
Xiao-qiu Huang ◽  
Hui-hui Zhao ◽  
Guo-Xing Jin ◽  
Bin Wang
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Neonatal Respiratory Distress

Background. Noninvasive respiratory support is considered the optimal method of providing assistance to preterm babies with breathing problems, including nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC). The evidence of the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC used as the primary respiratory support for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is insufficient in low- and middle-income countries. Objective. To investigate the effect of heated humidified high flow nasal cannula on neonatal respiratory distress syndrome compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Methods. An observational cross-sectional study was performed at a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit in suburban Wenzhou, China, in the period between January 2014 and December 2015. Results. A total of 128 infants were enrolled in the study: 65 in the HHHFNC group and 63 in the NCPAP group. The respiratory support with HHHFNC was similar to that with NCPAP with regard to the primary outcome. There is no significant difference between two groups in secondary outcomes. Comparing with NCPAP group, the incidence of nasal damage was lower in HHHFNC group. Conclusions. HHHFNC is an effective and well-tolerated strategy as the primary treatment of mild to moderate RDS in preterm infants older than 28 weeks of GA.

scholarly journals Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Malakian ◽  
Mohammad Reza Aramesh ◽  
Mina Agahin ◽  
Masoud Dehdashtian
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Abstract Background The most common cause of respiratory failure in premature infants is respiratory distress syndrome. Historically, respiratory distress syndrome has been treated by intratracheal surfactant injection followed by mechanical ventilation. In view of the risk of pulmonary injury associated with mechanical ventilation and subsequent chronic pulmonary lung disease, less invasive treatment modalities have been suggested to reduce pulmonary complications. Methods 148 neonates (with gestational age of 28 to 34 weeks) with respiratory distress syndrome admitted to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahwaz in 2018 were enrolled in this clinical trial study. 74 neonates were assigned to duo positive airway pressure (NDUOPAP) group and 74 neonates to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) group. The primary outcome in this study was failure of N-DUOPAP and NCPAP treatments within the first 72 h after birth and secondary outcomes included treatment complications. Results there was not significant difference between DUOPAP (4.1 %) and NCPAP (8.1 %) in treatment failure at the first 72 h of birth (p = 0.494), but non-invasive ventilation time was less in the DUOPAP group (p = 0.004). There were not significant differences in the frequency of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), pneumothorax, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), apnea and mortality between the two groups. Need for repeated doses of surfactant (p = 0.042) in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group. The duration of oxygen therapy in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.034). Also, the duration of hospitalization in the NDUOPAP group was shorter than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.002). Conclusions In the present study, DUOPAP compared to NCPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h of birth, but the duration of non-invasive ventilation and oxygen demand, the need for multiple doses of surfactant and length of stay in the DUOPAP group were less than those in the CPAP group. Trial registration IRCT20180821040847N1, Approved on 2018-09-10.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document