Suppr超能文献

产房复苏时用于正压通气的T形管或自动充气式气囊:一项随机对照试验

T-piece or self inflating bag for positive pressure ventilation during delivery room resuscitation: an RCT.

作者信息

Thakur Anup, Saluja Satish, Modi Manoj, Kler Neelam, Garg Pankaj, Soni Arun, Kaur Avneet, Chetri Sanjeev

机构信息

Department of Neonatology, Institute of Child health, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060, India.

Department of Neonatology, Institute of Child health, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060, India.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2015 May;90:21-4. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.01.021. Epub 2015 Jan 28.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the duration of positive pressure ventilation (PPV) during delivery room resuscitation in neonates resuscitated with self-inflating bag (SIB) and T-piece resuscitator (TPR).

DESIGN

Randomized control trial.

SETTING

Delivery room and neonatal intensive care unit of a tertiary care center in northern India.

PATIENTS

Consecutively born neonates more than 26 weeks of gestation requiring PPV at birth.

INTERVENTION

Eligible neonates were randomized to two groups, SIB and TPR.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Duration of PPV, intubation rates in delivery room, incidence of respiratory distress, need for mechanical ventilation during first 48h and its duration, need for surfactant replacement therapy and mortality during NICU stay.

RESULTS

Fifty neonates received PPV with a SIB and 40 received PPV with a TPR. The mean (SD) birth weight and gestational age of neonates in SIB and TPR groups were 2264 (872) and 2065 (814)g; 35.1 (3.6) and 34.3 (3.7) weeks, respectively. The median (IQR) duration of PPV in delivery room was significantly less in TPR group as compared to SIB; 30 (30-60)s vs. 60 (30-90)s, respectively; (p<0.001). A higher proportion of neonates required delivery room intubation in SIB group as compared to TPR group (34% vs. 15%, p=0.04). In the TPR group, a higher proportion of neonates could be resuscitated with room air only (72.5% vs. 38%, p=0.001). Other outcomes were comparable in the two groups. Similar findings were observed in neonates <34 weeks, except that fewer neonates resuscitated with TPR required invasive ventilation (31.6% vs. 77.8%, p=0.008).

CONCLUSION

Use of TPR during delivery room resuscitation resulted in shorter duration of PPV and lesser rates of intubation as compared to SIB. More infants in this group could be resuscitated with room air only (CTRI/2010/091/002946).

摘要

目的

比较使用自动充气式气囊(SIB)和T-组合复苏器(TPR)对新生儿进行产房复苏时正压通气(PPV)的持续时间。

设计

随机对照试验。

地点

印度北部一家三级医疗中心的产房和新生儿重症监护病房。

患者

连续出生的、孕周超过26周且出生时需要PPV的新生儿。

干预措施

符合条件的新生儿被随机分为两组,即SIB组和TPR组。

观察指标

PPV持续时间、产房插管率、呼吸窘迫发生率、出生后48小时内机械通气的需求及其持续时间、表面活性剂替代治疗的需求以及在新生儿重症监护病房住院期间的死亡率。

结果

50例新生儿使用SIB进行PPV,40例使用TPR进行PPV。SIB组和TPR组新生儿的平均(标准差)出生体重和孕周分别为2264(872)克和2,065(814)克;35.1(3.6)周和34.3(3.7)周。与SIB组相比,TPR组产房内PPV的中位(四分位间距)持续时间显著更短,分别为30(30 - 60)秒和60(30 - 90)秒;(p<0.001)。与TPR组相比,SIB组产房内需要插管的新生儿比例更高(34%对15%,p = 0.04)。在TPR组中,仅使用空气复苏的新生儿比例更高(72.5%对38%,p = 0.001)。两组的其他观察指标相当。在孕周<34周的新生儿中也观察到了类似的结果,只是使用TPR复苏的新生儿中需要有创通气的较少(31.6%对77.8%,p = 0.008)。

结论

与SIB相比,在产房复苏时使用TPR可缩短PPV持续时间并降低插管率。该组中更多婴儿仅使用空气即可复苏(CTRI/2010/091/002946)。

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