Dataset Information

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs noninvasive high frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV) as post-extubation support in preterm neonates: protocol for an assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Various noninvasive respiratory support modalities are available in neonatal critical care in order to minimize invasive ventilation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the more commonly used but noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) seems more efficacious in the early post-extubation phase, although it is not clear if NIPPV may influence longterm outcomes. A recently introduced alternative is noninvasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) which might be especially useful in babies needing high constant distending pressure. Preterm neonates may receive these respiratory supports for several weeks. Nonetheless, no data are available for the longterm use of NIPPV and NHFOV; few data exist on NHFOV and clinical outcomes, although its safety and suitability are reported in a number of preliminary short-term studies. METHODS:We designed an assessor-blinded, multicenter, three-arms, parallel, pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial with a superiority design, investigating the use of CPAP vs NIPPV vs NHFOV during the whole stay in neonatal intensive care units in China. Since safety data will also be analyzed it may be considered a phase II/III trial. Moreover, subgroup analyses will be performed on patients according to prespecified criteria based on physiopathology traits: these subgroup analyses should be considered preliminary. At least 1440 neonates are supposed to be enrolled. The trial has been designed with the collaboration of international colleagues expert in NHFOV, who will also perform an interim analysis at the about 50% of the enrolment. DISCUSSION:The study is applying the best trial methodology to neonatal ventilation, a field where it is often difficult to do so for practical reasons. Nonetheless, ours is also a physiology-driven trial, since interventions are applied based on physiological perspective, in order to use ventilatory techniques at their best. The pragmatic design will increase generalizability of our results but subgroup analyses according to predefined physiopathological criteria are also previewed trying to have some advantages of an explanatory design. Since not all clinicians are well versed in all respiratory techniques, the training is pivotal. We intend to apply particular care to train the participating units: a specific 3-month period and several means have been dedicated to this end. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03181958 (registered on June 9, 2017).

SUBMITTER: Shi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6659219 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs noninvasive high frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV) as post-extubation support in preterm neonates: protocol for an assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

Shi Yuan Y De Luca Daniele D

BMC pediatrics 20190726 1

<h4>Background</h4>Various noninvasive respiratory support modalities are available in neonatal critical care in order to minimize invasive ventilation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the more commonly used but noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) seems more efficacious in the early post-extubation phase, although it is not clear if NIPPV may influence longterm outcomes. A recently introduced alternative is noninvasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) wh ...[more]

PMID: 31349833

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSeveral respiratory support techniques are available to minimize the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in preterm neonates. It is unknown whether noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) is more efficacious than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preterm neonates after their first extubation.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that NHFOV is more efficacious than NCPAP or NIPPV in reducing IMV after extubation and until neonatal intensive care unit discharge among preterm neonates.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, pathophysiology-based, assessor-blinded, 3-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 69 tertiary referral neonatal intensive care units in China, recruiting participants from December 1, 2017, to May 31, 2021. Preterm neonates who were between the gestational age of 25 weeks plus 0 days and 32 weeks plus 6 days and were ready to be extubated were randomized to receive NCPAP, NIPPV or NHFOV. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.InterventionsThe NCPAP, NIPPV, or NHFOV treatment was initiated after the first extubation and lasted until discharge.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were total duration of IMV, need for reintubation, and ventilator-free days. These outcomes were chosen to describe the effect of noninvasive ventilation strategy on the general need for IMV.ResultsA total of 1440 neonates (mean [SD] age at birth, 29.4 [1.8] weeks; 860 boys [59.7%]) were included in the trial. Duration of IMV was longer in NIPPV (mean difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.01-2.3 days; P = .04) and NCPAP (mean difference, 1.5 days; 95% CI, 0.3-2.7 days; P = .01) compared with NHFOV. Neonates who were treated with NCPAP needed reintubations more often than those who were treated with NIPPV (risk difference: 8.1%; 95% CI, 2.9%-13.3%; P = .003) and NHFOV (risk difference, 12.5%; 95% CI, 7.5%-17.4%; P < .001). There were fewer ventilator-free days in neonates treated with NCPAP than in those treated with NIPPV (median [25th-75th percentile] difference, -3 [-6 to -1] days; P = .01). There were no differences between secondary efficacy or safety outcomes, except for the use of postnatal corticosteroids (lower in NHFOV than in NCPAP group; risk difference, 7.3%; 95% CI, 2.6%-12%; P = .002), weekly weight gain (higher in NHFOV than in NCPAP group; mean difference, -0.9 g/d; 95% CI, -1.8 to 0 g/d; P = .04), and duration of study intervention (shorter in NHFOV than in NIPPV group; median [25th-75th percentile] difference, -1 [-3 to 0] days; P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this trial indicated that NHFOV, if used after extubation and until discharge, slightly reduced the duration of IMV in preterm neonates, and both NHFOV and NIPPV resulted in a lower risk of reintubation than NCPAP. All 3 respiratory support techniques were equally safe for this patient population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181958.

Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE.ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations.Main resultsWe included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I2 = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I2 = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality.Authors' conclusionsOur review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.

Project description:AimsThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThere 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.

Dataset Information

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs noninvasive high frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV) as post-extubation support in preterm neonates: protocol for an assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs noninvasive high frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV) as post-extubation support in preterm neonates: protocol for an assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets