Literature DB >> 18254011

Devices and pressure sources for administration of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm neonates.

A G De Paoli1, P G Davis, B Faber, C J Morley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is used to support preterm infants recently extubated, those experiencing significant apnoea of prematurity and those with respiratory distress soon after birth as an alternative to intubation and ventilation. This review focuses exclusively on identifying the most effective pressure source and interface for NCPAP delivery in preterm infants.
OBJECTIVES: To determine which technique of pressure generation and which type of nasal interface for NCPAP delivery most effectively reduces the need for additional respiratory support in preterm infants extubated to NCPAP following intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) or in those treated with NCPAP soon after birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: The strategy included searches of MEDLINE (1966 - 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006) CINAHL, abstracts from conference proceedings, cross-referencing of previous reviews and the use of expert informants. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing different techniques of NCPAP pressure generation and/or nasal interfaces in preterm infants extubated to NCPAP following IPPV for RDS or treated with NCPAP soon after birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted and analysed by the first three authors. Dichotomous results were analysed using the relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT). MAIN
RESULTS: 1. Preterm infants being extubated to NCPAP following a period of IPPV for RDS:Meta-analysis of the results from Davis 2001 and Roukema 1999a demonstrated that short binasal prongs are more effective at preventing re-intubation than single nasal or nasopharyngeal prongs [typical RR 0.59 (CI: 0.41, 0.85), typical RD -0.21 (CI: -0.35, -0.07), NNT 5 (CI: 3, 14)]. In one study comparing short binasal prong devices (Sun 1999), the re-intubation rate was significantly lower with the Infant Flow Driver than with the Medicorp prong [RR 0.33 (CI: 0.17, 0.67), RD -0.32 (CI: -0.49, -0.15), NNT 3 (CI: 2, 7)]. The other study comparing short binasal prong devices (Infant Flow Driver versus INCA prongs, Stefanescu 2003) demonstrated no significant difference in the re-intubation rate but did show a significant reduction in the total days in hospital in the Infant Flow Driver group [MD -12.60 (95% CI: -22.81, -2.39) days].2. Preterm infants primarily treated with NCPAP soon after birth:In the one trial identified, Mazzella 2001 found a significantly lower oxygen requirement and respiratory rate in those randomised to short binasal prongs when compared with CPAP delivered via nasopharyngeal prong. The requirement for intubation beyond 48 hours from randomisation was not assessed.3. Studies randomising preterm infants to different NCPAP systems using broad inclusion criteriaThe studies of Rego 2002 and Buettiker 2004 did not examine the primary outcomes of this review. Of the secondary outcomes, Rego 2002 demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of nasal hyperaemia with the use of the Argyle prong compared with Hudson prongs [RR 2.39 (95% CI: 1.27, 4.50), RD 0.28 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.46)]. One study comparing different techniques of pressure generation is awaiting further assessment as it is currently available in abstract form only. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Short binasal prong devices are more effective than single prongs in reducing the rate of re-intubation. Although the Infant Flow Driver appears more effective than Medicorp prongs the most effective short binasal prong device remains to be determined. The improvement in respiratory parameters with short binasal prongs suggests they are more effective than nasopharyngeal CPAP in the treatment of early RDS. Further studies incorporating longer-term outcomes are required. Studies are also needed to determine the optimal pressure source for the delivery of NCPAP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18254011      PMCID: PMC7004254          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002977.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  54 in total

1.  Work of breathing during constant- and variable-flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates.

Authors:  P B Pandit; S E Courtney; K H Pyon; J G Saslow; R H Habib
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Effect of continuous positive airway pressure breathing on cardiorespiratory function in infants with respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  V Y Yu; P Rolfe
Journal:  Acta Paediatr Scand       Date:  1977-01

3.  Effect of nasal CPAP on thoracoabdominal motion in neonates with respiratory insufficiency.

Authors:  R Locke; J S Greenspan; T H Shaffer; S D Rubenstein; M R Wolfson
Journal:  Pediatr Pulmonol       Date:  1991

4.  A technique for delivery of continuous positive airway pressure to the neonate.

Authors:  D Benveniste; O Berg; J E Pedersen
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 4.406

5.  Continuous positive airway pressure and hydrocephalus.

Authors:  P Vert; M Andre; M Sibout
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1973-08-11       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Nasal continuous positive airways pressure immediately after extubation for preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

Authors:  P G Davis; D J Henderson-Smart
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

7.  Oropharyngeal and esophageal pressure during mono- and binasal CPAP in neonates.

Authors:  J E Pedersen; K Nielsen
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.299

8.  Neonatal nasal deformities secondary to nasal continuous positive airway pressure.

Authors:  B C Loftus; J Ahn; J Haddad
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  A randomised control study comparing the Infant Flow Driver with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.

Authors:  M Mazzella; C Bellini; M G Calevo; F Campone; D Massocco; P Mezzano; E Zullino; F Scopesi; C Arioni; W Bonacci; G Serra
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.747

10.  Comparison of two nasal prongs for application of continuous positive airway pressure in neonates.

Authors:  Maria A. C. Rego; Francisco E. Martinez
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.624

View more
  33 in total

Review 1.  CPAP review.

Authors:  Olie Chowdhury; Catherine J Wedderburn; Donovan Duffy; Anne Greenough
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 3.183

2.  Unsynchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation vs. head box oxygen for preventing extubation failure.

Authors:  Neeraj Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Pediatr       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.967

3.  Danger of low pressure alarm failure in preterm infants on continuous positive airway pressure.

Authors:  Martin Wald; Valerie Jeitler; Arnold Pollak; Lieselotte Kirchner
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2009-10-17       Impact factor: 3.183

4.  Neonatal nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation efficacy and lung pressure transmission.

Authors:  A Mukerji; J Belik
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 2.521

5.  Nasal masks or binasal prongs for delivering continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates-a randomised trial.

Authors:  Aparna Chandrasekaran; Anu Thukral; M Jeeva Sankar; Ramesh Agarwal; Vinod K Paul; Ashok K Deorari
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 6.  The role of surfactant and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in early management of respiratory distress syndrome in premature infants.

Authors:  Narayan Prabhu Iyer; Maroun Jean Mhanna
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 2.764

7.  Nasal high-frequency oscillation ventilation in neonates: a survey in five European countries.

Authors:  Hendrik Stefan Fischer; Kajsa Bohlin; Christoph Bührer; Gerd Schmalisch; Malte Cremer; Irwin Reiss; Christoph Czernik
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 3.183

8.  Nasal injury and comfort with jet versus bubble continuous positive airway pressure delivery systems in preterm infants with respiratory distress.

Authors:  Jafar Khan; Venkataseshan Sundaram; Srinivas Murki; Anuj Bhatti; Shiv Sajan Saini; Praveen Kumar
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 3.183

9.  Is volume and leak monitoring feasible during nasopharyngeal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates?

Authors:  Hendrik S Fischer; Charles C Roehr; Hans Proquitté; Hannes Hammer; Roland R Wauer; Gerd Schmalisch
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 10.  Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (3 of 7): evidence for effectiveness of interventions.

Authors:  Fernando C Barros; Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta; Maneesh Batra; Thomas N Hansen; Cesar G Victora; Craig E Rubens
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.