Comparison of Nasal Non-invasive Ventilation Methods in Preterm Neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Authors

  • ahmad shahfarhat assistant professor, neonatologist, Neonatal Research Center, emam reza hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS), Mashhad, Iran
  • Ashraf Mohammadzadeh Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  • Gholam Ali Mamuri Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  • Reza Saeidi Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  • Shadi Noorizadeh Neonatal Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract:

Background: Humidified heated high flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC), nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP), and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are three nasal non-invasive ventilation methods. The purpose of this study was to compare these three methods in decreasing intubation and mechanical ventilation rate in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Methods: This study was a randomized controlled study conducted on 160 neonates. The inclusion criteria for intubation in this study were persistent respiratory acidosis (arterial pH60), hypoxemia, severe and repeated apnea episodes which did not respond to increasing respiratory rate and therefore required ventilation. Cranial Ultrasound was performed on the third day after birth. The data of all neonates were collected until the day of discharge and analyzed by SPSS (version 20) and statistical methods. Results: Based on the results,there was no significant difference among the three randomized methods. Out of all the cases, 72% of the neonates with NIPPV had successful non-invasive ventilation (35/53), compared to 73/6% in NCPAP (39/53) and 72/2% in HHHFNC (P=0/999). Similarly, there was no significant difference among the three methods in total ventilation time and the need for supplemental oxygen. Conclusion: The use of HHHFNC at birth in preterm neonates with RDS is safer than the other two methods. However, it is not more effective than the other two methods in the reduction of intubation rate.

Upgrade to premium to download articles

Sign up to access the full text

Already have an account?login

similar resources

Neutrophil functions in late preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome

INTRODUCTION The innate immune system is the first line of host defense against invading microorganisms. In order to achieve this, neutrophils must be able both to circulate freely in the blood and to migrate as adherent cells into the extravascular tissues to phagocytose and kill invading microorganisms effectively. Most studies of neutrophil function have been conducted under conditions of am...

full text

Volume-guaranteed Ventilation Versus Pressure-controlled Ventilation in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: This study was targeted toward comparing volume-guaranteed (VG) ventilation with conventional pressure-controlled (PC) ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in terms of the facilitation of weaning and extubation and occurrence of complications, such as pneumothorax, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), retinopathy of prematur...

full text

A Comparative Study of Treatment Response of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: Early Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Early Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

Background Infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) is one of the main causes of serious complications and death in preterm infants. Both Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP) and Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) are known as the most common treatment strategies for IRDS. The present study intended to compare NCPAP and NIPPV in the treatment of preterm inf...

full text

A Comparison between Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Background: Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a non-invasive ventilatory mode, which delivers mechanical ventilation via nasal tubes or prongs. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy of NIPPV and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (NCPAP) in reducing the need for intubation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS)....

full text

Noninvasive Ventilation for Preterm Twin Neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Noninvasive ventilation has been proven to be effective strategies for reducing the need for endotracheal ventilation in preterm infant with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), however the best option needs to be further determined. A single center, paired design, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between Jan 2011 and July 2014. Preterm twins with RDS were included. One of a pair was ...

full text

comparison of insure method with conventional mechanical ventilation after surfactant administration in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: therapeutic challenge.

administration of endotracheal surfactant is potentially the main treatment for neonates suffering from rds (respiratory distress syndrome), which is followed by mechanical ventilation. late and severe complications may develop as a consequence of using mechanical ventilation. in this study, conventional methods for treatment of rds are compared with surfactant administration, use of mechanical...

full text

My Resources

Save resource for easier access later

Save to my library Already added to my library

{@ msg_add @}


Journal title

volume 9  issue 4

pages  53- 60

publication date 2018-12-01

By following a journal you will be notified via email when a new issue of this journal is published.

Hosted on Doprax cloud platform doprax.com

copyright © 2015-2023