Newborn Research Centre, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 10;369(15):1425-33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300071.
The use of high-flow nasal cannulae is an increasingly popular alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for noninvasive respiratory support of very preterm infants (gestational age, <32 weeks) after extubation. However, data on the efficacy or safety of such cannulae in this population are lacking.
In this multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned 303 very preterm infants to receive treatment with either high-flow nasal cannulae (5 to 6 liters per minute) or nasal CPAP (7 cm of water) after extubation. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 7 days. Noninferiority was determined by calculating the absolute difference in the risk of the primary outcome; the margin of noninferiority was 20 percentage points. Infants in whom treatment with high-flow nasal cannulae failed could be treated with nasal CPAP; infants in whom nasal CPAP failed were reintubated.
The use of high-flow nasal cannulae was noninferior to the use of nasal CPAP, with treatment failure occurring in 52 of 152 infants (34.2%) in the nasal-cannulae group and in 39 of 151 infants (25.8%) in the CPAP group (risk difference, 8.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.9 to 18.7). Almost half the infants in whom treatment with high-flow nasal cannulae failed were successfully treated with CPAP without reintubation. The incidence of nasal trauma was significantly lower in the nasal-cannulae group than in the CPAP group (P=0.01), but there were no significant differences in rates of serious adverse events or other complications.
Although the result for the primary outcome was close to the margin of noninferiority, the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannulae was similar to that of CPAP as respiratory support for very preterm infants after extubation. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Network number, ACTRN12610000166077.).
在拔管后,为极早产儿(胎龄<32 周)提供无创性呼吸支持,高流量鼻导管的使用正逐渐成为一种替代鼻塞持续气道正压通气(CPAP)的方法。然而,关于此类导管在该人群中的疗效或安全性的数据尚缺乏。
在这项多中心、随机、非劣效性试验中,我们将 303 例极早产儿分配接受高流量鼻导管(5 至 6 升/分钟)或拔管后鼻塞 CPAP(7 厘米水柱)治疗。主要结局是 7 天内治疗失败。非劣效性通过计算主要结局风险的绝对差值来确定;非劣效性边界为 20 个百分点。高流量鼻导管治疗失败的婴儿可以接受 CPAP 治疗;CPAP 治疗失败的婴儿重新插管。
高流量鼻导管的使用不劣于 CPAP,鼻导管组 152 例婴儿中有 52 例(34.2%)和 CPAP 组 151 例婴儿中有 39 例(25.8%)发生治疗失败(风险差为 8.4 个百分点;95%置信区间为-1.9 至 18.7)。近一半高流量鼻导管治疗失败的婴儿改用 CPAP 治疗而无需重新插管。鼻导管组的鼻损伤发生率明显低于 CPAP 组(P=0.01),但严重不良事件或其他并发症的发生率无显著差异。
尽管主要结局的结果接近非劣效性边界,但高流量鼻导管的疗效与 CPAP 相似,可作为拔管后极早产儿的呼吸支持。(由澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册中心资助;注册号为 ACTRN12610000166077。)