Dataset Information

Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Postextubation Support for Preterm Neonates in China: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Several 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

This 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.

Interventions

The NCPAP, NIPPV, or NHFOV treatment was initiated after the first extubation and lasted until discharge.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary 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.

Results

A 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 relevance

Results 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181958.

SUBMITTER: Zhu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9039831 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Postextubation Support for Preterm Neonates in China: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Zhu Xingwang X Qi HongBo H Feng Zhichun Z Shi Yuan Y De Luca Daniele D

JAMA pediatrics 20220601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Several 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.<h4>Objective</h4>To test the hypothesis that NHFOV is more efficacious than NCPA ...[more]

PMID: 35467744

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe NASONE (Nasal Oscillation Post-Extubation) trial showed that noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) slightly reduces the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in preterm infants, whereas NHFOV and noninvasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) result in fewer reintubations than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). It is unknown whether NHFOV is similarly effective in extremely preterm neonates or in those with more severe respiratory failure (based on the duration of previous ventilation and CO2 levels).ObjectiveTo clarify whether NHFOV is better than NIPPV and NCPAP in reducing the duration of IMV in extremely preterm neonates or those with severe respiratory failure.Design, setting, and participantsThis study is a predefined secondary analyses of a multicenter randomized clinical trial that was performed at tertiary academic neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in China. Participants included neonates enrolled in the NASONE trial between December 2017 and May 2021 and belonging to 3 predefined subgroups: (1) born at less than or equal to 28 weeks' (plus 6 days) gestation, (2) invasively ventilated for more than 1 week from birth, and (3) with CO2 greater than 50 mm Hg before or in the 24 hours after extubation. Data analysis was performed in August 2022.InterventionNCPAP, NIPPV, or NHFOV since the first extubation and until NICU discharge, with airway pressure higher in NHFOV than in NIPPV and than in NCPAP.Main outcomes and measuresThe co-primary outcomes were total duration of IMV during the NICU stay, need for reintubation, and ventilator-free days calculated as per the original trial protocol. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis as for the whole trial, and subgroup analyses followed the original statistical plan.ResultsAmong 1137 preterm infants, 455 (279 boys [61.3%]) were born at 28 weeks' gestation or less, 375 (218 boys [58.1%]) underwent IMV for more than 1 week from birth, and 307 (183 boys [59.6%]) had CO2 greater than 50 mm Hg before or in the 24 hours after extubation. Both NIPPV and NHFOV were associated with significantly fewer reintubations (risk difference range, -28% [95% CI, -39% to -17%] to -15% [95% CI, -25% to -4%]; number needed to treat, 3-7 infants) and early reintubations (risk difference range, -24% [95% CI, -35% to -14%] to -20% [95% CI, -30% to -10%]) than NCPAP, and these reintubations were less frequently due to refractory hypoxemia. IMV was shorter in the NIPPV and NHFOV groups (mean difference range, -5.0 days [95% CI, -6.8 to -3.1 days] to -2.3 days [95% CI, -4.1 to -0.4 days]) than in the NCPAP group. Co-primary outcomes were not different between NIPPV and NHFOV; there was no significant interaction effect. Infants in the NHFOV group showed significantly less moderate-to-severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia than infants in the NCPAP group (range, -12% to -10%; number needed to treat, 8-9 infants) and better postextubation gas exchange in all subgroups. The 3 interventions were provided at different mean airway pressure and were equally safe.Conclusions and relevanceThe subgroup analyses of extremely preterm or more ill infants confirm the results obtained in the whole population: NIPPV and NHFOV appeared equally effective in reducing duration of IMV compared with NCPAP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181958.

Project description:BackgroundVarious 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.MethodsWe 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationNCT03181958 (registered on June 9, 2017).

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacies of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) are controversial. The reasons for controversy may be the selection bias of research objects and the small sample size.MethodsLiterature retrieval was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and China Science Digital Library (CSDL) databases. Inclusion criteria: (I) literatures involving subjects who were newborns with RDS; (II) studies that had established both experimental and control groups; (III) the intervention measures of the experimental and control groups were NIPPV and NCPAP, respectively; (IV) the results included the incidence of intubation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), or mortality; and (V) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The chi-square test was applied for heterogeneity test. Publication bias assessment was conducted by funnel plot and Egger's test. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for individually randomized, parallel group trials (RoB2.0) was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included RCT research.ResultsA total of 10 literatures were included for analysis, including 1,104 patients, 557 in the NIPPV group and 547 in the NCPAP group. Among the literatures, 2 literatures had low risk of bias, 2 literatures had high risk of bias, and the rest had uncertain risk of bias. Compared to NCPAP, NIPPV reduced the incidence of neonatal intubation in RDS [risk ratio (RR) =0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.71, Z=5.11, P<0.00001]. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (P=0.13, I2=36%) or publication bias (P<0.05) among the studies. Compared with NCPAP, NIPPV reduced the incidence of BPD in RDS (RR =0.72, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91, Z=2.70, P=0.007). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (P=0.10, I2=41%) or publication bias (P>0.05) among the studies. NIPPV reduced the neonatal mortality rate of RDS (RR =0.55, 95% CI: 0.31-0.97, Z=2.08, P=0.04). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (P=0.20, I2=38%) or publication bias (P>0.05) among the studies.DiscussionCompared with NCPAP, NIPPV can reduce the incidence of intubation, BPD, and mortality. The conclusions need to be confirmed via high-quality RCTs.

Project description:ImportanceHigh-flow nasal oxygen may prevent postextubation respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). The combination of high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may be an optimal strategy of ventilation to avoid reintubation.ObjectiveTo determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen with prophylactic NIV applied immediately after extubation could reduce the rate of reintubation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone, in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter randomized clinical trial conducted from April 2017 to January 2018 among 641 patients at high risk of extubation failure (ie, older than 65 years or with an underlying cardiac or respiratory disease) at 30 ICUs in France; follow-up was until April 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to high-flow nasal oxygen alone (n = 306) or high-flow nasal oxygen alternating with NIV (n = 342) immediately after extubation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients reintubated at day 7; secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure at day 7, reintubation rates up until ICU discharge, and ICU mortality.ResultsAmong 648 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 70 [10] years; 219 women [34%]), 641 patients completed the trial. The reintubation rate at day 7 was 11.8% (95% CI, 8.4%-15.2%) (40/339) with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 18.2% (95% CI, 13.9%-22.6%) (55/302) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -6.4% [95% CI, -12.0% to -0.9%]; P = .02). Among the 11 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. The proportion of patients with postextubation respiratory failure at day 7 (21% vs 29%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -15.2% to -1.8%]; P = .01) and reintubation rates up until ICU discharge (12% vs 20%, difference -7.4% [95% CI, -13.2% to -1.8%]; P = .009) were significantly lower with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. ICU mortality rates were not significantly different: 6% with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 9% with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -2.4% [95% CI, -6.7% to 1.7%]; P = .25).Conclusions and relevanceIn mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of extubation failure, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen with NIV immediately after extubation significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03121482.

Project description:Many intensive care unit patients who undergo endotracheal extubation experience extubation failure and require reintubation. Because of the high mortality rate associated with reintubation, postextubation respiratory management is crucial, especially for high-risk populations. We conducted the present study to compare the effectiveness of oxygen therapy administered using high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preventing reintubation among patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). This single-center, prospective, unblinded randomized controlled trial was at the respiratory care center (RCC). Participants were randomized to an HFNC group or an NIPPV group (20 patients in each) and received noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) administered using their assigned method. The primary outcome was reintubation within7 days after extubation. None of the patients in the NIPPV group required reintubation, whereas 5 (25%) of the patients in the HFNC group required reintubation (P = 0.047). The 90-day mortality rates of the NIPPV and HFNC groups (four patients [20%] vs. two patients [10%], respectively) did not differ significantly. No significant differences in length of RCC stay, length of hospital stay, time to liberation from NRS, and ventilator-free days at 28-day were identified. The time to event outcome analysis also revealed that the risk of reintubation in the HFNC group was higher than that in the NIPPV group (P = 0.018). Although HFNC is becoming increasingly common as a form of postextubation NRS, HFNC may not be as effective as NIPPV in preventing reintubation among patients who have been receiving PMV for at least 2 weeks. Additional studies evaluating HFNC as an alternative to NIPPV for patients receiving PMV are warranted.ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT04564859; IRB number: 20160901R.Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04564859 ).

Project description:PurposeHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a heterogeneous population at high-risk for extubation failure. However, outcomes might differ in certain subgroups of patients. Thus, we aimed to determine whether NIV with active humidification is superior to HFNC in preventing reintubation in patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (very high risk for extubation failure).MethodsRandomized controlled trial in two intensive care units in Spain (June 2020‒June 2021). Patients ready for planned extubation with ≥ 4 of the following risk factors for reintubation were included: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 on extubation day, body mass index > 30, inadequate secretions management, difficult or prolonged weaning, ≥ 2 comorbidities, acute heart failure indicating mechanical ventilation, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, prolonged mechanical ventilation, or hypercapnia on finishing the spontaneous breathing trial. Patients were randomized to undergo NIV with active humidification or HFNC for 48 h after extubation. The primary outcome was reintubation rate within 7 days after extubation. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis, multiorgan failure, length of stay, mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation.ResultsOf 182 patients (mean age, 60 [standard deviation (SD), 15] years; 117 [64%] men), 92 received NIV and 90 HFNC. Reintubation was required in 21 (23.3%) patients receiving NIV vs 35 (38.8%) of those receiving HFNC (difference -15.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -28.3 to -1%). Hospital length of stay was lower in those patients treated with NIV (20 [12‒36.7] days vs 26.5 [15‒45] days, difference 6.5 [95%CI 0.5-21.1]). No additional differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed.ConclusionsAmong adult critically ill patients at very high-risk for extubation failure, NIV with active humidification was superior to HFNC for preventing reintubation.

Dataset Information

Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Postextubation Support for Preterm Neonates in China: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Postextubation Support for Preterm Neonates in China: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets