Questions Concerning Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure—Reply

Meneses, Jucille; Bhandari, Vineet; Alves, João Guilherme Bezerra

doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2212

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results showed a reduced risk for extubation failure and reintubation [14]. Fewer intubations in the delivery room have been reported [18]. A recent large study showing that NIV is not associated with decreased risk of BPD [12] was not yet published when the survey was performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less invasive ventilation in extremely low birth weight infants from 1997 to 2011: survey versus evidence

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less invasive ventilation in extremely low birth weight infants from 1997 to 2011: survey versus evidence

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We believed that the reasons for these differences in results are the selection bias of research objects and the small sample size. A previous meta-analysis (18) and its results update (19) showed that NIPPV could reduce the incidence of endotracheal intubation. However, this effect is conditional and cannot be promoted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this effect is conditional and cannot be promoted. Also, this meta-analysis (18) and results update (19) included fewer studies, and the results were limited to the benefits of NIPPV in reducing the demand for invasive ventilation. Therefore, we believe that a meta-analysis is necessary to compare the efficacy and safety of NIPPV and NCPAP in neonatal RDS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu¹,

Feng²,

Zhang³

et al. 2022

Transl Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The 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. Methods: Literature 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 chisquare 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.Results: A 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, I 2 =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, I 2 =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, I 2 =38%) or publication bias (P>0.05) among the studies.Discussion: Compared with NCPAP, NIPPV can reduce the incidence of intubation, BPD, and mortality.The conclusions need to be confirmed via high-quality RCTs.

show abstract

Questions Concerning Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure—Reply

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Less invasive ventilation in extremely low birth weight infants from 1997 to 2011: survey versus evidence

Less invasive ventilation in extremely low birth weight infants from 1997 to 2011: survey versus evidence

Efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About