Simone Martin1, Trevor Duke2, Peter Davis3. 1. Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 2. Department of Paediatrics, Centre for International Child Health, University of Melbourne MCRI, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Neonatal Medicine, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Forty per cent of global child deaths occur in the neonatal period. Low and middle income countries need effective and simple methods to improve hospital-based neonatal care. Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may have a role in improving the quality of respiratory support in hospitals in low and middle income countries. AIM: To examine the evidence for the efficacy and safety of bubble CPAP in neonates with respiratory distress in low and middle income settings. METHOD: A systematic search (1946-March 2014) was performed of Pubmed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and the references of relevant articles. Articles meeting inclusion criteria (CPAP for respiratory distress in infants <28 days of age in hospitals in low and middle income countries) were assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale methodology. Outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation, complications and mortality. RESULTS: In three studies, the initial use of bubble CPAP compared with oxygen therapy, followed by mechanical ventilation if required, reduced the need for mechanical ventilation by 30%-50%. In another three trials comparing bubble CPAP with ventilator CPAP, mortality and complication rates were similar, while meta-analysis of CPAP failure in these same trials showed a lower failure rate in the bubble CPAP groups (p <0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that bubble CPAP is safe and reduces the need for mechanical ventilation. Further research into the efficacy of bubble CPAP in low-income and middle-income countries is needed. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
INTRODUCTION: Forty per cent of global child deaths occur in the neonatal period. Low and middle income countries need effective and simple methods to improve hospital-based neonatal care. Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may have a role in improving the quality of respiratory support in hospitals in low and middle income countries. AIM: To examine the evidence for the efficacy and safety of bubble CPAP in neonates with respiratory distress in low and middle income settings. METHOD: A systematic search (1946-March 2014) was performed of Pubmed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and the references of relevant articles. Articles meeting inclusion criteria (CPAP for respiratory distress in infants <28 days of age in hospitals in low and middle income countries) were assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale methodology. Outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation, complications and mortality. RESULTS: In three studies, the initial use of bubble CPAP compared with oxygen therapy, followed by mechanical ventilation if required, reduced the need for mechanical ventilation by 30%-50%. In another three trials comparing bubble CPAP with ventilator CPAP, mortality and complication rates were similar, while meta-analysis of CPAP failure in these same trials showed a lower failure rate in the bubble CPAP groups (p <0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that bubble CPAP is safe and reduces the need for mechanical ventilation. Further research into the efficacy of bubble CPAP in low-income and middle-income countries is needed. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Ramon Farré; Gerard Trias; Gorka Solana; Gemma Ginovart; David Gozal; Daniel Navajas Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Gabriela Ss Chaves; Diana A Freitas; Thayla A Santino; Patricia Angelica Ms Nogueira; Guilherme Af Fregonezi; Karla Mpp Mendonça Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-01-02