Dataset Information

Experiences with implementation of continuous positive airway pressure for neonates and infants in low-resource settings: A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the gold standard of care in providing non-invasive positive pressure support to neonates in respiratory distress in high-resource settings. While safety has been demonstrated in low-resource settings, there is a lack of knowledge on the barriers and facilitators to proper implementation.

Objective

To identify and describe the barriers, facilitators, and priorities for future implementation of CPAP for neonates and infants in low-resource settings.

Methods

A systematic search (database inception to March 6, 2020) was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, and the WHO Global Index Medicus using PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Original research articles pertaining to implementation of CPAP devices in low-resource settings, provider or parent perspectives and experiences with CPAP, cost-benefit analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies were included. Inductive content analysis was conducted.

Findings

1385 article were screened and 54 studies across 19 countries met inclusion criteria. Six major themes emerged: device attributes, patient experiences, parent experiences, provider experiences, barriers, and facilitators. Nasal trauma was the most commonly reported complication. Barriers included unreliable electricity and lack of bioengineering support. Facilitators included training, mentorship and empowerment of healthcare providers. Device design, supply chain infrastructure, and training models were imperative to the adoption and sustainability of CPAP.

Conclusion

Sustainable implementation of CPAP in low resource settings requires easy-to-use devices, ready access to consumables, and holistic, user-driven training. Further research is necessary on standardizing metrics, interventions that support optimal provider performance, and conditions needed for successful long-term health system integration.

SUBMITTER: Dada S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8195417 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Importance:Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as a primary respiratory therapy in meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) has not been studied extensively. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure, when applied in newborns with MAS, may resolve atelectasis by sufficiently expanding partially obstructed small airways and stabilizing the collapsing terminal airways to enhance oxygen exchange. Objective:To compare NCPAP vs standard care in neonates with moderate to severe respiratory failure due to MAS in reducing the need for invasive ventilation. Design, Settings, and Participants:This multicenter open-label, parallel-group (1:1 ratio) randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 5, 2014, to May 26, 2016. Data were collected from 3 tertiary care neonatal intensive care units. All infants admitted with respiratory distress, defined as Downe score greater than 4 and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation less than 90%, were assessed for study eligibility if the chest radiograph was suggestive of MAS and they met the other inclusion criteria: gestation longer than 35 weeks, a birth weight greater than 2000 g, and born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Interventions:Infants were randomly assigned to either NCPAP or standard care (5-10 L/min hood oxygen). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation in the first 7 days of life. Results:After excluding 14 infants, 67 infants were randomized to bubble NCPAP and 68 infants to standard care. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Infants randomized to the bubble NCPAP group needed mechanical ventilation less frequently in the first 7 days of life compared with standard care (2 [3.0%] vs 17 [25.0%]); odds ratio, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.43; P?=?.002). The need for surfactant (3 [4.5%] vs 11 [16.2%]; odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-0.87) and culture-positive sepsis (4 [6.0%] vs 13 [19.0%]; odds ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.93) were higher in the standard care group. There was an increased duration of oxygen therapy (median [interquartile range], 45.5 [28.0-78.3] vs 26 [20.0-48.0] hours; P?=?.001) in the standard care group. In the NCPAP group vs standard care group, incidence of persistent pulmonary hypertension (9 [13%] vs 19 [28%]; odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.01) and duration of hospital stay (median [interquartile range], 5.0 [4.0-8.8] vs 4.0 [4.0-6.0] days; P?=?.14) were similar. Conclusions and Relevance:Bubble NCPAP in comparison with standard care for infants with MAS reduces the need for mechanical ventilation in the first 7 days of life. Trial Registration:Clinical Trial Registry, India Identifier: CTRI/2015/03/005631.

Project description:ImportanceNasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is a well-established treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Suboptimal weaning from nCPAP may be associated with lung injury, pulmonary morbidity, and infant weight gain. To our knowledge, the best weaning strategy from nCPAP is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare the effect of sudden wean and pressure wean from nCPAP in very preterm infants.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized, clinical, open-label, multicenter trial was conducted at 6 neonatal intensive care units in Denmark from September 2012 to December 2016 and included infants born before 32 weeks of gestation.InterventionsSudden wean with discontinuation of nCPAP without a prior reduction in pressure. Pressure wean with gradual pressure reduction prior to the discontinuation of nCPAP.Main outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was weight gain velocity from randomization to postmenstrual age 40 weeks. Secondary outcomes included other measures of growth, nCPAP and the duration of oxygen supplementation, postmenstrual age at successful wean and at discharge, successful wean at the first attempt, the number of attempts to wean, and the length of the hospital stay. Prespecified subgroup analyses by gestational age were performed.ResultsOf the 372 randomized infants, 185 (49.7%) were randomized to sudden wean and 187 infants (50.3%) to pressure wean. A total of 177 infants in both groups completed the trial (median gestational age for sudden and pressure wean, 30 weeks [interquartile range, 29-31]; male: sudden wean, 89 [50%]; pressure wean, 96 [54%]). There was no difference in mean [SD] weight gain velocity from randomization to 40 weeks postmenstrual age between the 2 groups (22 [6] g/kg/day). No difference was found in any of the secondary outcomes. More infants born before 28 weeks of gestation were successfully weaned from nCPAP during the first attempt in the pressure wean group compared with the sudden wean group (risk difference, 31%; 95% CI, 13%-50%), but there was no difference in the duration of nCPAP and oxygen supplementation.Conclusions and relevanceOverall, we found no difference in weight gain velocity or any of the secondary outcomes between very preterm infants who were randomized to sudden wean or pressure wean from nCPAP. However, among infants born before 28 weeks' gestation, infants from the pressure wean group were more often successfully weaned during the first attempt without a longer total duration of nCPAP treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01721629.