Literature DB >> 23897911

A randomized trial of nasal prong or face mask for respiratory support for preterm newborns.

Lisa K McCarthy1, Anne R Twomey, Eleanor J Molloy, John F A Murphy, Colm P F O'Donnell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Resuscitation guidelines recommend that respiratory support should be given to newborns via a face mask (FM) in the delivery room (DR). Respiratory support given to preterm newborns via a single nasal prong (SNP; ie, short nasal tube, nasopharyngeal tube) may be more effective. We wished to determine whether giving respiratory support to preterm newborns with a SNP rather than a FM reduces the rate of intubation in the DR.
METHODS: Infants <31 weeks' gestation were randomized just before delivery to SNP (endotracheal tube shortened to 5 cm) or FM. Randomization was stratified by gestation (<28 weeks, 28-30(+6)). Infants with apnea, respiratory distress, and/or heart rate <100 received positive pressure ventilation with a T-piece. The primary outcome was intubation and mechanical ventilation in the DR. Infants in both groups were intubated for heart rate <100 and/or apnea despite PPV and not solely for surfactant administration. All other aspects of treatment in the DR and NICU were the same. Relevant secondary outcomes were recorded and data were analyzed by using the intention-to-treat principle.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-four infants were enrolled. The rate of intubation in the DR was the same in both groups (11/72 [15%] vs 11/72 [15%], P = 1.000]. Infants assigned to SNP had lower SpO2 at 5 minutes and received a higher maximum concentration of oxygen in the DR. There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Giving respiratory support to newborn infants <31 weeks' gestation via a SNP, compared with a FM, did not result in less intubation and ventilation in the DR.

Entities:  

Keywords:  delivery room; face mask; infant; nasal prong; newborn; positive pressure ventilation; preterm; randomized trial; respiratory support; resuscitation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23897911     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-0446

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  6 in total

Review 1.  Effective ventilation: The most critical intervention for successful delivery room resuscitation.

Authors:  Elizabeth E Foglia; Arjan B Te Pas
Journal:  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.926

2.  Mask ventilation with two different face masks in the delivery room for preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  D Cheung; Q Mian; P-Y Cheung; M O'Reilly; K Aziz; S van Os; G Pichler; G M Schmölzer
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 2.521

3.  Decreasing Intubation for Ineffective Ventilation after Birth for Very Low Birth Weight Neonates.

Authors:  Heidi M Herrick; Danielle D Weinberg; Jennifer James; Ashley Murray; Loretta Brown-Jackson; Aasma Chaudhary; Michael A Posencheg; Elizabeth E Foglia
Journal:  Pediatr Qual Saf       Date:  2022-08-01

Review 4.  [Newborn resuscitation and support of transition of infants at birth].

Authors:  John Madar; Charles C Roehr; Sean Ainsworth; Hege Ersda; Colin Morley; Mario Rüdiger; Christiane Skåre; Tomasz Szczapa; Arjan Te Pas; Daniele Trevisanuto; Berndt Urlesberger; Dominic Wilkinson; Jonathan P Wyllie
Journal:  Notf Rett Med       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 0.892

5.  Analyzing support of postnatal transition in term infants after c-section.

Authors:  Dimitrios Konstantelos; Sascha Ifflaender; Jürgen Dinger; Wolfram Burkhardt; Mario Rüdiger
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Major discrepancies between what clinical trial registries record and paediatric randomised controlled trials publish.

Authors:  Paola Rosati; Franz Porzsolt; Gabriella Ricciotti; Giuseppina Testa; Rita Inglese; Ferruccio Giustini; Ersilia Fiscarelli; Marco Zazza; Cecilia Carlino; Valerio Balassone; Roberto Fiorito; Roberto D'Amico
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.