SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Pediatrics / 2021 / Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratory support techniques as primary respiratory support in preterm infants

Ahmet ÖKTEM
Şule YİĞİT
HASAN TOLGA ÇELİK
Murat YURDAKOK
Pages
23–30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, doctors need to be careful with regard to the complications that may develop.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The use of non-invasive ventilation methods in neonatal intensive care units has been increasing in recent years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Between December 2015 and February 2017, a total of 76 preterm infants (gestational age <32 weeks) with respiratory distress were enrolled in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, doctors need to be careful with regard to the complications that may develop.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background. The use of non-invasive ventilation methods in neonatal intensive care units has been increasing in recent years. Non-invasive ventilation techniques are lung preserving methods and they reduce the risk of volutrauma, barotrauma, and atelectotrauma. Methods. The effect of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and nasal high-frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV) were compared in preterm infants with respiratory distress. Results. Between December 2015 and February 2017, a total of 76 preterm infants (gestational age <32 weeks) with respiratory distress were enrolled in this study. Of the patients, 20 received HHHFNC, while 20 received nasal CPAP (NCPAP), 19 received NIPPV, and 17 received NHFOV for respiratory support. The primary outcome was intubation requirement during non-invasive respiratory support. The secondary outcome included duration of non-invasive ventilation, air leak syndrome, abdominal distension, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), nasal injury, increased secretions, agitation, and mortality rate. The intubation ratio was higher in the NCPAP (40%) and NHFOV (29.4%) groups when compared with the NIPPV (10.5%) and HHHFNC (11.8%) groups. More nasal injury had developed in the NIPPV (78.9%) and NHFOV (82.4%) groups when compared with the NCPAP (40%) and HHHFNC (35%) groups. Moreover, the viscous secretion that blocked the cannulas was higher in NIPPV (78.9%) and NHFOV (76.5%) groups than NCPAP (25%) and HHHFNC (40%) groups. There were no significant differences in the duration of non-invasive ventilation methods, abdominal distension, NEC, air leak syndrome or mortality in the 4 groups. Conclusions. The NIPPV and HHHFNC methods can be useful as a primary mode of respiratory support for respiratory distress. However, doctors need to be careful with regard to the complications that may develop.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖKTEM, A., YİĞİT, Ş., ÇELİK, H. T., YURDAKOK, M. (2021). Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratory support techniques as primary respiratory support in preterm infants. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics, Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 1, 23–30. https://ajindex.com/articles/411736

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Lau HCQ, Tung JSZ, Wong TTC, Tan PL, Tagore S. Timing of antenatal steroids exposure and its effects on neonates. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296: 1091- 1096
  2. Warren JB, Anderson JM. Newborn respiratory disorders. Pediatr Rev 2010; 31: 487-495
  3. Shim GH. Update of minimally invasive surfactant therapy. Korean J Pediatr 2017; 60: 273-281
  4. Jobe AH, Bancalari E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163: 1723-1729
  5. Schmölzer GM, Kumar M, Pichler G, Aziz K, O’Reilly M, Cheung PY. Non-invasive versus invasive respiratory support in preterm infants at birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2013; 347: f5980
  6. Wright CJ, Kirpalani H. When should we start continuous positive airway pressure in the delivery room and how high should we go? Acta Paediatr 2016; 105: 868-870
  7. Trembath A, Laughon MM. Predictors of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Clin Perinatol 2012; 39: 585-601
  8. Bhandari V. The potential of non-invasive ventilation to decrease BPD. Semin Perinatol 2013; 37: 108-114
  9. Wilkinson D, Andersen C, O’Donnell CP, De Paoli AG, Manley BJ. High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2: CD006405
  10. Shin J, Park K, Lee EH, Choi BM. Humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as an initial respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress: a randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial. J Korean Med Sci 2017; 32: 650-655
  11. Owen LS, Manley BJ. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants: equipment, evidence, and synchronization. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 21: 146-153
  12. Mukerji A, Finelli M, Belik J. Nasal high-frequency oscillation for lung carbon dioxide clearance in the newborn. Neonatology 2013; 103: 161-165
  13. Lemyre B, Laughon M, Bose C, Davis PG. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 12: CD005384
  14. Shi Y, Tang S, Zhao J, Shen J. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of NIPPV versus nCPAP in preterm and term infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatr Pulmonol 2014; 49: 673- 678
  15. Kugelman A, Feferkorn I, Riskin A, Chistyakov I, Kaufman B, Bader D. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled, prospective s