Dataset Information

Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as an initial therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm and near-term infants.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, various forms of non-invasive respiratory support have been used in the management of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm neonates. However, nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) has not yet been applied commonly as an initial treatment.

Objectives

This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of nHFOV compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm and near-term infants with RDS.

Methods

In a randomised clinical trial, a total of 68 neonates (gestational age (GA) between 30 and 36 weeks and 6 days) with a clinical diagnosis of RDS were randomly assigned to either the NCPAP (n=34) or the nHFOV (n=34) group. The primary outcome was the duration of non-invasive respiratory support (duration of using NCPAP or nHFOV).

Result

The median (IQR) duration of non-invasive respiratory support, was significantly shorter in the nHFOV group than that in the NCPAP group (20 (15-25.3) versus 26.5 (15-37.4) hours, respectively; p=0.02). The need for a ventilator occurred in 4 out of 34 (11.8%) neonates in the NCPAP group and in none of the neonates in the nHFOV group (p=0.03). In addition, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) occurred in nine cases (6.9%) in the NCPAP group and two cases (3.3%) in the nHFOV group, which showed a significant difference (p=0.04). The incidence of pneumothorax, chronic lung disease, pulmonary haemorrhage and necrotising enterocolitis was similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study showed that nHFOV significantly reduced the duration of non-invasive respiratory support and decreased the need for intubation compared with NCPAP in infants with RDS. Furthermore, nHFOV seems to reduce the incidence of IVH without increasing other complications.

Trial registration number

IRCT2017062734782N1.

SUBMITTER: Iranpour R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6668751 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as an initial therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm and near-term infants.

Iranpour Ramin R Armanian Amir-Mohammad AM Abedi Ahmad-Reza AR Farajzadegan Ziba Z

BMJ paediatrics open 20190714 1

<h4>Background</h4>Currently, various forms of non-invasive respiratory support have been used in the management of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm neonates. However, nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) has not yet been applied commonly as an initial treatment.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of nHFOV compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm and near-term infants with RDS.<h4>Method ...[more]

PMID: 31414062

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:BACKGROUND:Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is associated with the development of adverse pulmonary and non-pulmonary outcomes in very premature infants. Various modes of non-invasive respiratory support are increasingly being used to decrease the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The aim of this trial is to compare the effect of non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) as a primary non-invasive ventilation support mode. METHODS/DESIGN:In this multi-center randomized controlled trial, 300 preterm infants born at a gestational age of 266/7 to 336/7 weeks with a diagnosis of RDS will be randomized to NHFOV or NCPAP as a primary mode of non-invasive respiratory support. The study will be conducted in 18 tertiary neonatal intensive care units in China. The primary outcome is the need for IMV during the first 7 days after enrollment in preterm infants randomized to the two groups. The prespecified secondary outcomes include days of hospitalization, days on non-invasive respiratory support, days on IMV, days on supplemental oxygen, mortality, need for a surfactant, severe retinopathy of prematurity requiring laser treatment or surgery, patent ductus arteriosus needing ligation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, abdominal distention, air leak syndromes, intraventricular hemorrhage (≥ grade 3), spontaneous intestinal perforation, necrotizing enterocolitis (≥II stage), and nasal trauma. Other secondary outcomes include Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 18-24 months of corrected age. DISCUSSION:In recent decades, several observational studies have compared the effects of NHFOV and NCPAP in neonates as a rescue mode or during weaning from IMV. To our knowledge, this will be the first multi-center prospective, randomized controlled trial to evaluate NHFOV as a primary mode in preterm infants with RDS in China or any other part of the world. Our trial may help to establish guidelines for NHFOV in preterm infants with RDS to minimize the need for IMV, and to decrease the significant pulmonary and non-pulmonary morbidities associated with IMV. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03099694 . Registered on 4 April 2017.

Project description:To compare whether alternate rotation of nasal mask with nasal prongs every 8 h as compared to continuous use of either interface alone decreases the incidence of nasal injury in preterm infants receiving nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP). This was an open-label, three-arm, stratified randomized controlled trial where infants < 35 weeks receiving nCPAP were randomized into three groups using two different nasal interfaces (continuous prongs group, continuous mask group, and rotation group). All infants were assessed for nasal injury six hours post-removal of nCPAP using grading suggested by Fischer et al. The nursing care was uniform across all three groups. Intention-to-treat analysis was done. Fifty-seven infants were enrolled, with nineteen in each group. The incidence of nasal injury was 42.1% vs. 47.4% vs. 68.4% in the rotation group, continuous mask, and continuous prongs groups, respectively (P = 0.228). On adjusted analysis (gestational age, birth weight, and duration of nCPAP therapy), the incidence of nasal injury was significantly less in the rotation group as compared to continuous prongs group (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR], 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.10 [0.01-0.69], P = 0.02) and a trend towards lesser nasal injury as compared to continuous mask group (AOR, 95% CI; 0.15 [0.02-1.08], P = 0.06). However, there was no significant difference in incidence of nasal injuries between continuous prongs versus continuous mask group (P = 0.60). The need for surfactant, nCPAP failure rate, duration of nCPAP, and common neonatal co-morbidities were similar across all three groups. Conclusion: Systematic rotation of nasal mask with nasal prongs significantly reduced nasal injury among preterm infants on nCPAP as compared to continuous use of nasal prongs alone without affecting nCPAP failure rate. Trial registration: CTRI/2019/01/017320, registered on 31/01/2019. What is Known: • Use of nasal mask as an interface for nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure decreases nasal injury as compared to nasal prongs. What is New: • Rotation of nasal prongs and nasal mask interfaces alternately every 8 h may reduce the nasal injury even further as compared to either interface alone.

Project description:The use of mechanical ventilation is associated with lung injury in preterm infants and therefore the goal is to avoid or minimize its use. To date there is very little consensus on what is considered the "best non-invasive ventilation mode" to be used post-extubation. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of biphasic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BP-NCPAP) vs. NCPAP in facilitating sustained extubation in infants ? 1,250 grams.We performed a randomized controlled trial of BP-NCPAP vs. NCPAP in infants ? 1,250 grams extubated for the first time following mechanical ventilation since birth. Infants were extubated using preset criteria or at the discretion of the attending neonatologist. The primary outcome was the incidence of sustained extubation for 7 days. Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse events and short-term neonatal outcomes.Sixty-seven infants received BP-NCPAP and 69 NCPAP. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The trial was stopped early due to increased use of non-invasive ventilation from birth, falling short of our calculated sample size of 141 infants per group. The incidence of sustained extubation was not statistically different between the BP-NCPAP vs. NCPAP group (67% vs. 58%, P = 0.27). The incidence of adverse events and short-term neonatal outcomes were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05) except for retinopathy of prematurity which was noted to be higher (P = 0.02) in the BP-NCPAP group.Biphasic NCPAP may be used to assist in weaning from mechanical ventilation. The effectiveness and safety of BP-NCPAP compared to NCPAP needs to be confirmed in a large multi-center trial as our study conclusions are limited by inadequate sample size. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION #: NCT00308789 SOURCE OF SUPPORT: Grant # 06-06, Physicians Services Incorporated Foundation, Toronto, Canada. Summit technologies Inc. provided additional NCPAP systems and an unrestricted educational grant.Abstract presented at The Society for Pediatric Research Meeting, Baltimore, USA, May 2nd-5th, 2009 and Canadian Paediatric Society Meeting, June 23rd-29th, Ottawa, 2009.

Project description:BackgroundNasal masks and nasal prongs are used as interfaces for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress, either as primary support after birth or as ongoing support after endotracheal extubation from mechanical ventilation. It is unclear which type of interface is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of nasal masks versus nasal prongs for reducing CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress.Search methodsWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials comparing masks versus prongs as interfaces for delivery of nasal CPAP in newborn preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) with or at risk of respiratory distress.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. treatment failure, 2. all-cause mortality, and 3. neurodevelopmental impairment. Our secondary outcomes were 4. pneumothorax, 5. moderate-severe nasal trauma, 6. bronchopulmonary dysplasia, 7. duration of CPAP use, 8. duration of oxygen supplementation, 9. duration of hospitalisation, 10. patent ductus arteriosus receiving medical or surgical treatment, 11. necrotising enterocolitis, 12. severe intraventricular haemorrhage, and 13. severe retinopathy of prematurity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.Main resultsWe included 12 trials with 1604 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 118). The trials occurred after 2001 in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (eight trials). Most participants were preterm infants of 26 to 34 weeks' gestation who received nasal CPAP as the primary form of respiratory support after birth. The studied interfaces included commonly used commercially available masks and prongs. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of performance and detection bias in all the trials. Meta-analyses suggested that use of masks compared with prongs may reduce CPAP treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 8 trials, 919 infants; low certainty). The type of interface may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.22; 7 trials, 814 infants; low certainty). There are no data on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analyses suggest that the choice of interface may result in little or no difference in the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.93; 5 trials, 625 infants; low certainty). Use of masks rather than prongs may reduce the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 10 trials, 1058 infants; low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; 7 trials, 843 infants; very low certainty).Authors' conclusionsThe available trial data provide low-certainty evidence that use of masks compared with prongs as the nasal CPAP interface may reduce treatment failure and nasal injury, and may have little or no effect on mortality or the risk of pneumothorax in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. The effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia is very uncertain. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Project description:ImportanceRespiratory distress syndrome and feeding intolerance are common conditions that are often associated with preterm infants. Showing similar efficacy, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) are the most widespread noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) in neonatal intensive care units, but their effect on feeding intolerance is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of NCPAP vs HHHFNC on high-risk preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter randomized clinical trial involved infants who were born in 1 of 13 neonatal intensive care units in Italy between November 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021. Preterm infants with a gestational age of 25 to 29 weeks, who were suitable for enteral feeding and who proved to be medically stable on NRS for at least 48 hours were enrolled in the study within the first week of life and randomized to receive either NCPAP or HHHFNC. Statistical analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat approach.InterventionNCPAP or HHHFNC.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the time to full enteral feeding (FEF), defined as an enteral intake of 150 mL/kg per day. Secondary outcomes were the median daily increment of enteral feeding, signs of feeding intolerance, effectiveness of the assigned NRS, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)-fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) ratio at changes of NRS, and growth.ResultsTwo-hundred forty-seven infants (median [IQR] gestational age, 28 [27-29] weeks; 130 girls [52.6%]) were randomized to the NCPAP group (n = 122) or the HHHFNC group (n = 125). There were no differences in the primary and secondary nutritional outcomes between the 2 groups. The median time to reach FEF was 14 days (95% CI, 11-15 days) in the NCPAP group and 14 days (95% CI, 12-18 days) in the HHHFNC group, and similar results were observed in the subgroup of infants with less than 28 weeks' gestation. On the first NRS change, higher SpO2-FIO2 ratio (median [IQR], 4.6 [4.1-4.7] vs 3.7 [3.2-4.0]; P < .001) and lower rate of ineffectiveness (1 [4.8%] vs 17 [73.9%]; P < .001) were observed in the NCPAP vs HHHFNC group.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that NCPAP and HHHFNC had similar effects on feeding intolerance, despite different working mechanisms. Clinicians may tailor respiratory care by selecting and switching between the 2 NRS techniques on the basis of respiratory effectiveness and patient compliance, without affecting feeding intolerance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03548324.

Dataset Information

Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as an initial therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm and near-term infants.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Result

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as an initial therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm and near-term infants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets