A Comparison between Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 1. Assistant Professor of Neonatology, Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Professor of Neonatology, Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Neonatology, Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

4 Fellowship of Neonatology, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Background: Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a non-invasive ventilatory mode, which delivers mechanical ventilation via nasal tubes or prongs. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy of NIPPV and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (NCPAP) in reducing the need for intubation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
Methods: This randomized, clinical trial was conducted at the neonatal intensive care unit of Imam Reza Hospital, affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences during eight months since April 2014. Preterm infants with RDS were recruited before showing any indications for endotracheal intubation after birth. The NIPPV and NCPAPV groups were matched in terms of clinical characteristics. Each infant was randomized to receive either NIPPV or NCPAPV immediately after extubation. Nasal ventilation was deemed successful if intubation was not required within at least 72 hours. Brain sonography was carried out on the third day of life in all infants. Data were recorded for all neonates until hospital discharge.
Results: In total, 28% (15/53) and 26.4% (14/53) of infants in the NIPPV and NCPAPV groups were intubated within the first 72 h after birth, respectively (P=0.168). Neither of the procedures induced major adverse effects, although the incidence rate and severity of intraventricular hemorrhage were higher in the NIPPV group, compared to the NCPAPV group (P=0.026).
Conclusion: Although NIPPV is confirmed as the first-line treatment for the management of neonatal RDS, this mode of ventilation showed no superiority over NCPAPV in eliminating the need for mechanical ventilation in the present study.

Keywords

References

  1. References

    1. Manley BJ, Dold SK, Davis PG, Roehr CC. High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support of preterm infants.  Neonatology. 2012; 102(4):300-8.
    2. Kirpalani H, Miller D, Lemyre B, Yoder B, Chiu A, Roberts RS, et al. A trial comparing noninvasive ventilation strategies in preterm infants. N Eng J Med. 2013; 369(7):611-20.
    3. Ramanathan R. Nasal respiratory support through the nares: its time has come. J Perinatol. 2010; 30 Suppl:S67-72.
    4. Ramanathan R, Paz P, Biniwale M. Non-invasive ventilation and surfactant therapy. J Pulmon Resp Med. 2013; 13:161-72
    5. Shoemaker MT, Pierce MR, Yoder BA. High flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for neonatal respiratory disease: a retrospective study. J Perinatol. 2007; 27(2):85-91.
    6. Bradeley AY, Stoddard RA, Li M, King J, Dirnberger DR, Abbasi S. Heated, humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for respiratory support in neonates. Pediatrics. 2013; 131:1482-90
    7. Frizzole M, Miller TL, Rodriguez ME, Zhu Y, Rojas J, Hesek A, et al. High flow nasal cannula: impact on oxygenation and ventilation in an acute lung injury model. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2011; 46(1):67-74.
    8. Sai Sunil Kishore M, Dutta S, Kumar P. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Paediatr. 2009; 98(9):1412-5.
    9. Bisceglia M, Belcastro A, Poerio V, Raimondi F, Mesuraca L, Crugliano C, et al. A comparison of nasal intermittent versus continuous positive pressure delivery for the treatment of moderate respiratory syndrome in preterm infants. Minerva Pediatr. 2007; 59(2):91-5.

    10. Kugelman A, Feferkorn I, Riskin A, Chistyakov I, Kaufman B, Bader D. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Pediatr. 2007; 150(5):521-6.

    11. Armanian AM, Badiee Z, Heidari G, Feizi A, Salehimehr N. Initial treatment of respiratory distress syndrome with nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Prev Med. 2014; 5(12):1543-51.

    12. Meneses J, Bhandari V, Alves JG, Herrmann D. Noninvasive ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2011; 127(2):300-7.

    13. Meneses J, Bhandari V, Alves JG. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012; 166(4):372-6.

    14. Hyeon-Soo L, Se Ra M. Comparison of effectiveness of nasal continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for the Initial treatment of preterm respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective pilot study. Neonatal Med. 2014; 21(3):158-65.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics