Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation Versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure to Prevent Primary Noninvasive Ventilation Failure in Extremely Low Birthweight Infants

Bourque, Stephanie L.; Roberts, Robin S.; Wright, Clyde J.; Kirpalani, Haresh; Lemyre, Brigitte; Millar, David; Bamat, Nicolas A.

doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.08.064

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The characteristics of the included studies are given in Table 1. Some of the studies that were excluded for varying reasons are given in Table 2 58‐89 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Ramaswamy

Roehr

et al. 2020

Pediatric Pulmonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of different noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) modes for primary respiratory support of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis using the Bayesian randomeffects approach. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Interventions: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel CPAP (BiPAP), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). Main Outcome Measures: Requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), any treatment failure. Results: A total of 35 studies including 4078 neonates were included. NIPPV was more effective in decreasing the requirement of MV than CPAP (risk ratios [95% credible interval]: 0.60 [0.44, 0.77]) and HFNC [0.66 (0.43, 0.97)]. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for NIPPV, BiPAP, HFNC, and CPAP were 0.95, 0.59, 0.32, and 0.13. For the outcome of treatment failure, both NIPPV and BiPAP were more efficacious compared to CPAP and HFNC (0.56 [0.44, 0.71] {NIPPV vs CPAP}, 0.69 [0.51, 0.93] {BiPAP vs CPAP}, 0.42 [0.30, 0.63] {NIPPV vs HFNC}, 0.53

show abstract

“…The characteristics of the included studies are given in Table 1. Some of the studies that were excluded for varying reasons are given in Table 2 58‐89 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Ramaswamy

Roehr

et al. 2020

Pediatric Pulmonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kugelman et al, Sai Sunil Kishore et al, and Shi et al reported that early initiation of NIPPV may lead to a reduction in the need for intubation and IMV compared with NCPAP [23][24][25], while Chen et al and Meneses et al found that NIPPV had no advantage in reducing intubation compared with NCPAP [26,27]. Recently, Bourque et al performed a retrospective cohort study using NIPPV randomized control trial data of Kirpalani et al They identified that failure rates were similar for NIPPV vs. NCPAP [28]. Our study also demonstrated no significant differences between NIPPV and NCPAP; however, the number of days of hospitalization in NIPPV was significantly lower than that in the NCPAP group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three non-invasive ventilation strategies for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a propensity score analysis

Cao¹,

Li²,

Zhu³

et al. 2020

aoms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the sub-study from the same cohort, 27.5% of infants in the NIPPV group and 30.1% of infants in the NCPAP group failed non-invasive support within the first 7 days of life with a relative risk of 0.91. (95% CI, 0.54–1.53) ( 15 ). Li et al conducted another meta-analysis to evaluate whether NIPPV would decrease the intubation need compared with NCPAP for preterm infants with RDS, and found that NIPPV could not decrease the need for invasive ventilation ( 16 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs. Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Initial Treatment After Birth in Extremely Preterm Infants

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveNon-invasive respiratory support strategies are known to reduce the complications of invasive mechanical ventilation in preterm infants. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are commonly used ones. The recent meta-analyses indicated that early NIPPV did appear to be superior to NCPAP for decreasing respiratory failure and the need for intubation among preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). The aim of the study was to compare the short-term outcomes of extremely preterm infants who received NCPAP or NIPPV as an initial treatment of RDS.MethodsThis retrospective study included infants born before 29 weeks' gestation between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021 who received non-invasive respiratory support with NCPAP or NIPPV. For every infant included in the cohort, only the first episode of NCPAP or NIPPV as initial treatment was evaluated. The primary outcome was the need for intubation within 72 h, and the secondary outcomes were the need for intubation within 7 days, administration of surfactant, prematurity-related morbidities, mortality, and death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).ResultsDuring the study period, there were 116 inborn admissions of preterm infants born <29 weeks' gestation and 60 of them met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 (52%) infants received NCPAP while 29 (48%) infants received NIPPV at the first hours after birth. There were no differences in the baseline demographics between the groups (p > 0.05). Blood gas parameters (pH, pCO2, HCO3, and lactate) at admission were not different. The need for intubation within 72 h as the primary outcome was similar between NCPAP and NIPPV groups (35.5 vs. 34.5%, p = 0.935). The rates of surfactant requirement, need for intubation within 7 days, prematurity-related morbidities, mortality, and death/BPD were similar among the groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionNasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation is non-inferior to NCPAP as an initial treatment in extremely preterm infants with RDS. Although the rate of intubation in the first week, mortality, and BPD did not differ between groups, additional studies are needed and the synchronization of NIPPV should be evaluated.

show abstract

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation Versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure to Prevent Primary Noninvasive Ventilation Failure in Extremely Low Birthweight Infants

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Three non-invasive ventilation strategies for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a propensity score analysis

Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs. Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation as Initial Treatment After Birth in Extremely Preterm Infants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About