Luca Moresco1, Olga Romantsik2, Maria Grazia Calevo3, Matteo Bruschettini2,4. 1. Ospedale San Paolo, Pediatric and Neonatology Unit, Savona, Italy. 2. Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Paediatrics, Lund, Sweden. 3. Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Epidemiology, Biostatistics Unit, IRCCS, Genoa, Italy, 16147. 4. Skåne University Hospital, Cochrane Sweden, Wigerthuset, Remissgatan 4, First Floor, Room 11-221, Lund, Sweden, 22185.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Supportive management might be sufficient. Non-invasive (i.e. without endotracheal intubation) respiratory support may, however, be administered to reduce respiratory distress during TTN. In addition, non-invasive respiratory support might improve clearance of lung liquid thus reducing the effort required to breathe, improving respiratory distress and potentially reducing the duration of tachypnea. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefits and harms of non-invasive respiratory support for the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1996 to 19 February 2019), Embase (1980 to 19 February 2019) and CINAHL (1982 to 19 February 2019). We applied no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and cluster trials on non-invasive respiratory support provided to infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more and less than three days of age with transient tachypnea of the newborn. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each of the included trials, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, duration of oxygen therapy, need for continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] and need for mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review were need for mechanical ventilation and pneumothorax. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (150 infants) comparing either CPAP to free-flow oxygen, nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation to nasal CPAP, or nasal high-frequency percussive ventilation versus nasal CPAP. Due to these different comparisons and to high clinical heterogeneity in the baseline clinical characteristics, we did not pool the three studies. The use of CPAP versus free oxygen did not improve the primary outcomes of this review: need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 6.99; 1 study, 64 participants); and pneumothorax (not estimable, no cases occurred). Among secondary outcomes, CPAP reduced the duration of tachypnea as compared to free oxygen (mean difference [MD] -21.10 hours, 95% CI -22.92 to -19.28; 1 study, 64 participants). Nasal intermittent ventilation did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation as compared with CPAP (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 32.72; 1 study, 40 participants) or the incidence of pneumothorax (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 study, 40 participants); duration of tachypnea did not differ (MD 4.30, 95% CI -19.14 to 27.74; 1 study, 40 participants). In the study comparing nasal high-frequency ventilation to CPAP, no cases of mechanical ventilation of pneumothorax occurred (not estimable; 1 study, 46 participants); duration of tachypnea was reduced in the nasal high-frequency ventilation group (MD -4.53, 95% CI -5.64 to -3.42; 1 study, 46 participants). The quality of the evidence was very low due to the imprecision of the estimates and unclear risk of bias for detection bias and high risk of bias for reporting bias. Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses as no studies were pooled. Two trials are ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to establish the benefit and harms of non-invasive respiratory support in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. Though two of the included trials showed a shorter duration of tachypnea, clinically relevant outcomes did not differ amongst the groups. Given the limited and low quality of the evidence available, it was impossible to determine whether non-invasive respiratory support was safe or effective for the treatment of transient tachypnea of the newborn.
BACKGROUND: Transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Supportive management might be sufficient. Non-invasive (i.e. without endotracheal intubation) respiratory support may, however, be administered to reduce respiratory distress during TTN. In addition, non-invasive respiratory support might improve clearance of lung liquid thus reducing the effort required to breathe, improving respiratory distress and potentially reducing the duration of tachypnea. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefits and harms of non-invasive respiratory support for the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1996 to 19 February 2019), Embase (1980 to 19 February 2019) and CINAHL (1982 to 19 February 2019). We applied no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and cluster trials on non-invasive respiratory support provided to infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more and less than three days of age with transient tachypnea of the newborn. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each of the included trials, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, duration of oxygen therapy, need for continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] and need for mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review were need for mechanical ventilation and pneumothorax. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (150 infants) comparing either CPAP to free-flow oxygen, nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation to nasal CPAP, or nasal high-frequency percussive ventilation versus nasal CPAP. Due to these different comparisons and to high clinical heterogeneity in the baseline clinical characteristics, we did not pool the three studies. The use of CPAP versus free oxygen did not improve the primary outcomes of this review: need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 6.99; 1 study, 64 participants); and pneumothorax (not estimable, no cases occurred). Among secondary outcomes, CPAP reduced the duration of tachypnea as compared to free oxygen (mean difference [MD] -21.10 hours, 95% CI -22.92 to -19.28; 1 study, 64 participants). Nasal intermittent ventilation did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation as compared with CPAP (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 32.72; 1 study, 40 participants) or the incidence of pneumothorax (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 study, 40 participants); duration of tachypnea did not differ (MD 4.30, 95% CI -19.14 to 27.74; 1 study, 40 participants). In the study comparing nasal high-frequency ventilation to CPAP, no cases of mechanical ventilation of pneumothorax occurred (not estimable; 1 study, 46 participants); duration of tachypnea was reduced in the nasal high-frequency ventilation group (MD -4.53, 95% CI -5.64 to -3.42; 1 study, 46 participants). The quality of the evidence was very low due to the imprecision of the estimates and unclear risk of bias for detection bias and high risk of bias for reporting bias. Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses as no studies were pooled. Two trials are ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to establish the benefit and harms of non-invasive respiratory support in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. Though two of the included trials showed a shorter duration of tachypnea, clinically relevant outcomes did not differ amongst the groups. Given the limited and low quality of the evidence available, it was impossible to determine whether non-invasive respiratory support was safe or effective for the treatment of transient tachypnea of the newborn.
Authors: Judith U Hibbard; Isabelle Wilkins; Liping Sun; Kimberly Gregory; Shoshana Haberman; Matthew Hoffman; Michelle A Kominiarek; Uma Reddy; Jennifer Bailit; D Ware Branch; Ronald Burkman; Victor Hugo Gonzalez Quintero; Christos G Hatjis; Helain Landy; Mildred Ramirez; Paul VanVeldhuisen; James Troendle; Jun Zhang Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shamimunisa B Mustafa; John Isaac; Steven R Seidner; Patricia S Dixon; Barbara M Henson; Robert J DiGeronimo Journal: Exp Lung Res Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Arpitha Chiruvolu; Kevin M Claunch; Alberto J Garcia; Barbara Petrey; Kendall Hammonds; Lea H Mallett Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Edward F Stocks; Mambarambath Jaleel; William Smithhart; Patti J Burchfield; Anita Thomas; Kate Louise M Mangona; Vishal Kapadia; Myra Wyckoff; Venkatakrishna Kakkilaya; Shelby Brenan; L Steven Brown; Christopher Clark; David B Nelson; Luc P Brion Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Michaela Kollisch-Singule; Harry Ramcharran; Joshua Satalin; Sarah Blair; Louis A Gatto; Penny L Andrews; Nader M Habashi; Gary F Nieman; Adel Bougatef Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Erin V McGillick; Arjan B Te Pas; Thomas van den Akker; J M H Keus; Marta Thio; Stuart B Hooper Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.569