Nasal CPAP in the delivery room for newborns with extremely low birth weight in a hospital in a developing country

Gonçalves‐Ferri, Walusa Assad; Martinez, Francisco Eulógio

doi:10.1590/1414-431x20132849

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study aimed to compare both methods of noninvasive respiratory support including NHFOV and NCPAP in the treatment of preterm neonates from 28 to 34 weeks of gestational age (GA) with respiratory syndrome. Because newborns with a birth weight less than 1000 grams, were intubated and placed under mechanical ventilation [31,32], we did not enroll these neonates in present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Malakian

Bashirnezhadkhabaz

Aramesh

et al. 2019

The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is one of the main causes of mortality in premature neonates. Treatment of these neonates with invasive mechanical ventilation has side effects such as chronic pulmonary diseases. Noninvasive ventilation, such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal high-frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV), has shown to reduce the burden of chronic lung disease. NHFOV is a promising new mode of noninvasive ventilation and may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and reduce possible complications. In this study, we hypothesized that early NHFOV would reduce the need for invasive respiratory support in comparison to NCPAP in preterm neonates with RDS. Methods: One hundred twenty-four neonates between 28 to 34 weeks of gestational age (GA) with RDS hospitalized at Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz in 2016 were included in this randomized controlled study. The primary outcomes were the failure of NHFOV and NCPAP within 72 h after birth. The secondary outcomes were the duration of invasive ventilation and possible side effects. Results: Out of 124 neonates in this study, 63 and 61 neonates were studied in the NHFOV and NCPAP groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between NHFOV (6.5%) and NCPAP (14.1%) groups in terms of rates of primary consequences (p ¼ .13). However, the duration of noninvasive ventilation in NHFOV was significantly less than that of NCPAP group (p ¼ .01). Conclusion: In our study group, preterm infants from 28 to 34 weeks of GA, NHFOV did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h after birth compared to NCPAP; however, the duration of noninvasive ventilation in the NHFOV group was significantly shorter.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Malakian

Bashirnezhadkhabaz

Aramesh

et al. 2019

The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review. These comprised of observational studies without a comparator arm: six studies [29][30][31][32][33][34] , observational studies with a comparator arm: five studies [35][36][37][38][39] and RCTs: seven studies [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] . Eleven (4210 neonates) out of the eighteen studies were synthesized in a meta-analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delivery room CPAP in improving outcomes of preterm neonates in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this context, the present study aimed to compare the two non-invasive ventilation methods of NDUOPAP and NCPAP among 148 preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome aged 28 to 34 weeks. Because infants weighing less than 1000 g and under 28 weeks of gestation are usually intubated and undergo mechanical ventilation, they were not included in this study [ 27 , 28 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Nasal CPAP in the delivery room for newborns with extremely low birth weight in a hospital in a developing country

Cited by 9 publications

References 23 publications

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Delivery room CPAP in improving outcomes of preterm neonates in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About