Literature DB >> 27371758

Biphasic Positive Airway Pressure or Continuous Positive Airway Pressure: A Randomized Trial.

Suresh Victor1, Stephen A Roberts2, Simon Mitchell3, Huma Aziz4, Tina Lavender5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is currently no clear evidence that nasal-biphasic positive airway pressure (n-BiPAP) confers any advantage over nasal-continuous positive airway pressure (n-CPAP). Our hypothesis was that preterm infants born before 30 weeks' gestation and <2 weeks old when extubated onto n-BiPAP will have a lower risk of extubation failure than infants extubated onto n-CPAP at equivalent mean airway pressure.
METHODS: We conducted an unblinded multicenter randomized trial comparing n-CPAP with n-BiPAP in infants born <30 weeks' gestation and <2 weeks old. The primary outcome variable was the rate of extubation failure within 48 hours after the first attempt at extubation. Block randomization stratified by center and gestation (<28 weeks or ≥28 weeks) was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 540 infants (270 in each group) were eligible to be included in the statistical analysis; 57 (21%) of n-BiPAP group and 55 (20%) of n-CPAP group failed extubation at 48 hours postextubation (adjusted odds ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.56; P = .97). Subgroup analysis of infants born before and after 28 weeks' gestation showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences between arms in death; oxygen requirement at 28 days; oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' corrected gestation; or intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis requiring surgery, or pneumothorax.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial shows that there is no added benefit to using n-BIPAP over n-CPAP at equivalent mean airway pressure in preventing extubation failures in infants born before 30 weeks' gestation and <2 weeks old.
Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27371758     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-4095

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


  4 in total

1.  Eligibility Criteria and Representativeness of Randomized Clinical Trials That Include Infants Born Extremely Premature: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Leeann R Pavlek; Brian K Rivera; Charles V Smith; Joanie Randle; Cory Hanlon; Kristi Small; Edward F Bell; Matthew A Rysavy; Sara Conroy; Carl H Backes
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 6.314

Review 2.  Current insights in non-invasive ventilation for the treatment of neonatal respiratory disease.

Authors:  Dhivya Lakshmi Permall; Asfia Banu Pasha; Xiao-Qing Chen
Journal:  Ital J Pediatr       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 2.638

3.  Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Arash Malakian; Mohammad Reza Aramesh; Mina Agahin; Masoud Dehdashtian
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 2.125

Review 4.  Practical aspects on the use of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants.

Authors:  Nehad Nasef; Hend Me Rashed; Hany Aly
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2020-02-18
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.