A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing effectiveness of two nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices in very-low-birth-weight infants
- 1 March 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
- Vol. 13 (2), 191-196
- https://doi.org/10.1097/pcc.0b013e3182231882
Abstract
Many studies suggest nasal continuous positive airway pressure is an effective and relatively complication-free means of respiratory support in premature infants. However, only limited data exist regarding the practical aspects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure delivery, including the best way to provide the positive airway pressure. Our aim was to compare the results of treatment using two different nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices: variable flow Infant Flow and constant flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure in two different groups of very-low-birth-weight infants in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. The indication groups were elective to avoid intubation and weaning from mechanical ventilation. Twelve leading tertiary care neonatal centers in Poland. Among 276 infants (weighing between 750-1500g, with a gestational age ≤32 wks) enrolled, 51% were randomized to receive Infant Flow and 49% to receive constant flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Treatment success (i.e., no need for intubation/reintubation) occurred in 75% of our patients with a nonstatistically significant advantage seen with Infant Flow. The incidence of severe nasal complications and necrotizing enterocolitis were statistically significantly lower in the infants treated with Infant Flow. In our study, factors associated with elective nasal continuous positive airway pressure failure were birth weight ≤1000 g, gestational age ≤28 wks, clinical risk index for babies score >1, and PaO(2)/FIO(2) ratio of <150. Only birth weight ≤1000 g was associated with weaning failure. We found fewer severe nasal complications but no statistically significant advantage in treatment success in infants assigned to Infant Flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure compared with those assigned to constant flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment. Significant risk factors of treatment failure include small size, maturity, and severity of respiratory distress syndrome.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Early CPAP versus Surfactant in Extremely Preterm InfantsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, A Potentially Better Practice, Reduces the Use of Mechanical Ventilation Among Very Low Birth Weight Infants With Respiratory Distress SyndromePEDIATRICS, 2009
- Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and SurfactantNeonatology, 2008
- Nasal CPAP or Intubation at Birth for Very Preterm InfantsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Factors effecting adoption of new neonatal and pediatric respiratory technologiesIntensive Care Medicine, 2007
- Introduction of Infant Flow nasal continuous airway pressure as the standard of practice in Poland: The initial 2-year experiencePediatric Critical Care Medicine, 2007
- Incidence of nasal trauma associated with nasal prong versus nasal mask during continuous positive airway pressure treatment in very low birthweight infants: a randomised control studyArchives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal & Neonatal, 2005
- Trends in Mortality and Morbidity for Very Low Birth Weight Infants, 1991–1999PEDIATRICS, 2002
- Nasal deformities resulting from flow driver continuous positive airway pressure.Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal & Neonatal, 1996
- Treatment of the Idiopathic Respiratory-Distress Syndrome with Continuous Positive Airway PressureThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1971