Literature DB >> 27532363

Heated, Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Respiratory Distress Syndrome of Prematurity: A Randomized Clinical Noninferiority Trial.

Anna Lavizzari1, Mariarosa Colnaghi1, Francesca Ciuffini1, Chiara Veneroni2, Stefano Musumeci1, Ivan Cortinovis3, Fabio Mosca1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) has gained increasing popularity as respiratory support for newborn infants thanks to ease of use and improved patient comfort. However, its role as primary therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) of prematurity needs to be further elucidated by large, randomized clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether HHHFNC provides respiratory support noninferior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or bilevel nCPAP (BiPAP) as a primary approach to RDS in infants older than 28 weeks' gestational age (GA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An unblinded, monocentric, randomized clinical noninferiority trial at a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit. Inborn infants at 29 weeks 0 days to 36 weeks 6 days of GA were eligible if presenting with mild to moderate RDS requiring noninvasive respiratory support. Criteria for starting noninvasive respiratory support were a Silverman score of 5 or higher or a fraction of inspired oxygen higher than 0.3 for a target saturation of peripheral oxygen of 88% to 93%. Infants were ineligible if they had major congenital anomalies or severe RDS requiring early intubation. Infants were enrolled between January 5, 2012, and June 28, 2014.
INTERVENTIONS: Randomization to either HHHFNC at 4 to 6 L/min or nCPAP/BiPAP at 4 to 6 cm H2O. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Need for mechanical ventilation within 72 hours from the beginning of respiratory support. The absolute risk difference in the primary outcome and its 95% confidence interval were calculated to determine noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 10%). An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 316 infants were enrolled in the study: 158 in the HHHFNC group (mean [SD] GA, 33.1 [1.9] weeks; 52.5% female) and 158 in the nCPAP/BiPAP group (mean [SD] GA, 33.0 [2.1] weeks; 47.5% female). The use of HHHFNC was noninferior to nCPAP with regard to the primary outcome: failure occurred in 10.8% vs 9.5% of infants, respectively (95% CI of risk difference, -6.0% to 8.6% [within the noninferiority margin]; P = .71). Significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes were not found between the HHHFNC and nCPAP/BiPAP groups, including duration of respiratory support (median [interquartile range], 4.0 [2.0 to 6.0] vs 4.0 [2.0 to 7.0] days; 95% CI of difference in medians, -1.0 to 0.5; P = .45), need for surfactant (44.3% vs 46.2%; 95% CI of risk difference, -9.8 to 13.5; P = .73), air leaks (1.9% vs 2.5%; 95% CI of risk difference, -3.3 to 4.5; P = .70), and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (4.4% vs 5.1%; 95% CI of risk difference, -3.9 to 7.2; P = .79). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, HHHFNC showed efficacy and safety similar to those of nCPAP/BiPAP when applied as a primary approach to mild to moderate RDS in preterm infants older than 28 weeks' GA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02570217.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27532363     DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1243

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Pediatr        ISSN: 2168-6203            Impact factor:   16.193


  14 in total

1.  Non-Invasive Ventilation in Neonatology.

Authors:  Judith Behnke; Brigitte Lemyre; Christoph Czernik; Klaus-Peter Zimmer; Harald Ehrhardt; Markus Waitz
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  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

3.  [Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates: a Meta analysis].

Authors:  Xi Lin; Peng Jia; Xiao-Qin Li; Qin Liu
Journal:  Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-11

4.  Differential impact of flow and mouth leak on oropharyngeal humidification during high-flow nasal cannula: a neonatal bench study.

Authors:  Tim Leon Ullrich; Christoph Czernik; Christoph Bührer; Gerd Schmalisch; Hendrik Stefan Fischer
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 2.764

5.  How does high-flow nasal cannulae compare to nasal CPAP for treatment of early respiratory distress?

Authors:  S Parmekar; J Hagan
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 2.521

Review 6.  Nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

Authors:  Nicolas Bamat; Julie Fierro; Amit Mukerji; Clyde J Wright; David Millar; Haresh Kirpalani
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-11-30

7.  Efficacy comparison of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation with continuous nasal positive airway pressure in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome treatment.

Authors:  Jincai Lin; Ying Shen; Jiyuan Liu; Yinzhu Luo; Xiaoying Ma; Liyan Zhang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 4.060

8.  A multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, comparing nasal high flow with nasal continuous positive airway pressure as primary support for newborn infants with early respiratory distress born in Australian non-tertiary special care nurseries (the HUNTER trial): study protocol.

Authors:  Brett J Manley; Calum T Roberts; Gaston R B Arnolda; Ian M R Wright; Louise S Owen; Kim M Dalziel; Jann P Foster; Peter G Davis; Adam G Buckmaster
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Non-invasive Respiratory Support of the Premature Neonate: From Physics to Bench to Practice.

Authors:  Ibrahim Sammour; Sreenivas Karnati
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 3.418

Review 10.  Nasal high flow treatment in preterm infants.

Authors:  Calum T Roberts; Kate A Hodgson
Journal:  Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol       Date:  2017-09-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.