Suppr超能文献

气泡与常规持续气道正压通气预防早产儿极低出生体重儿拔管失败的比较:一项初步研究。

Bubble vs conventional continuous positive airway pressure for prevention of extubation failure in preterm very low birth weight infants: a pilot study.

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics WHO Collaborating Centre for Training and Research in Newborn Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

Indian J Pediatr. 2012 Sep;79(9):1163-8. doi: 10.1007/s12098-011-0651-2. Epub 2011 Dec 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of bubble and conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preventing extubation failure (EF) in preterm infants.

METHODS

Infants of gestation ≤32 wk and birth weight <1500 g, ready for initial extubation within first wk of life were randomly allocated to either bubble (n = 16) or conventional (n = 16) CPAP. A standardized protocol was used for extubation. Bubble CPAP was delivered by Fischer and Paykel equipment using short binasal prongs and conventional CPAP was delivered by a ventilator using Argyle short binasal prongs. CPAP was initiated at a pressure of 4-6 cm of H(2)O and FiO(2) of 0.4-0.5 and adjusted to maintain normal saturation (90-93%) and comfortable breathing. Primary outcome was EF, defined as need for mechanical ventilation within 72 h of extubation.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics including birth weight (g; 1027 ± 243 vs. 1018 ± 227; p = 0.83), gestation (wk; 28.7 ± 1.8 vs. 28.4 ± 1.6; p = 0.30), infants <28 wk gestation (6 vs. 7, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. Respiratory distress syndrome was the indication for ventilation in 13 (81%) and 14 (87%) infants on bubble CPAP and conventional CPAP groups respectively. (p = 0.99). There was no difference in the EF rates between the bubble (n = 4) and conventional CPAP (n = 9) groups. (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.20-1.2; p = 0.14). Median time to extubation failure was also comparable between the two groups (h; median [range]: 29 [14-49] vs. 17 [7-28]; p = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility that bubble CPAP may be associated with reduced EF as suggested in this pilot study requires further investigation in an adequately powered multicentric study.

摘要

目的

比较气泡和常规鼻塞持续气道正压通气(CPAP)在预防早产儿拔管失败(EF)中的疗效。

方法

将胎龄≤32 周且出生体重<1500g、出生后第一周内准备首次拔管的婴儿随机分配至气泡(n=16)或常规(n=16)CPAP 组。采用标准化方案进行拔管。气泡 CPAP 由菲舍尔和佩克尔设备通过短双鼻插管输送,常规 CPAP 由 Argyle 短双鼻插管输送。CPAP 在 4-6cm H2O 的压力和 0.4-0.5 的 FiO2 下开始,并根据需要调整以维持正常饱和度(90-93%)和舒适呼吸。主要结局为 EF,定义为拔管后 72 小时内需要机械通气。

结果

两组的基线特征包括出生体重(g;1027±243 与 1018±227;p=0.83)、胎龄(wk;28.7±1.8 与 28.4±1.6;p=0.30)、胎龄<28 周的婴儿(6 与 7,p=0.72)在两组之间无差异。呼吸窘迫综合征是 13 例(81%)和 14 例(87%)接受气泡 CPAP 和常规 CPAP 治疗的婴儿进行通气的指征。(p=0.99)。在气泡 CPAP 组(n=4)和常规 CPAP 组(n=9)中,EF 发生率无差异。(RR 0.49;95%CI 0.20-1.2;p=0.14)。两组的拔管失败中位时间也无差异(h;中位数[范围]:29[14-49]与 17[7-28];p=0.35)。

结论

这项初步研究表明,气泡 CPAP 可能与降低 EF 有关,但这一可能性需要在一项充分有力的多中心研究中进一步调查。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验