Suppr超能文献

早产儿对两种无创通气支持系统的反应:鼻持续气道正压通气和鼻间歇正压通气。

Response of Preterm Infants to 2 Noninvasive Ventilatory Support Systems: Nasal CPAP and Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation.

作者信息

Silveira Carmen Salum Thomé, Leonardi Kamila Maia, Melo Ana Paula Carvalho Freire, Zaia José Eduardo, Brunherotti Marisa Afonso Andrade

机构信息

Pediatrics

Physiotherapy, Hospital Santa Casa de Franca, Franca, São Paulo, Brazil.

出版信息

Respir Care. 2015 Dec;60(12):1772-6. doi: 10.4187/respcare.03565. Epub 2015 Sep 15.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in preterm infants is currently applied using intermittent positive pressure (2 positive-pressure levels) or in a conventional manner (one pressure level). However, there are no studies in the literature comparing the chances of failure of these NIV methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of failure of 2 noninvasive ventilatory support systems in preterm neonates over a period of 48 h.

METHODS

A randomized, prospective, clinical study was conducted on 80 newborns (gestational age < 37 weeks, birthweight < 2,500 g). The infants were randomized into 2 groups: 40 infants were treated with nasal CPAP and 40 infants with nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV). The occurrence of apnea, progression of respiratory distress, nose bleeding, and agitation was defined as ventilation failure. The need for intubation and re-intubation after failure was also observed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in birth characteristics between groups. Ventilatory support failure was observed in 25 (62.5%) newborns treated with nasal CPAP and in 12 (30%) newborns treated with NIPPV, indicating an association between NIV failure and the absence of intermittent positive pressure (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, P < .05). Apnea (32.5%) was the main reason for nasal CPAP failure. After failure, 25% (OR 0.33) of the newborns receiving nasal CPAP and 12.5% (OR 0.14) receiving NIPPV required invasive mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventilatory support failure was significantly more frequent when nasal CPAP was used.

摘要

背景

目前,早产儿无创通气(NIV)采用间歇正压通气(2个正压水平)或传统方式(1个压力水平)。然而,文献中尚无比较这些无创通气方法失败几率的研究。本研究的目的是评估两种无创通气支持系统在早产儿48小时内失败的发生率。

方法

对80例新生儿(胎龄<37周,出生体重<2500g)进行了一项随机、前瞻性临床研究。婴儿被随机分为两组:40例婴儿接受鼻持续气道正压通气(CPAP)治疗,40例婴儿接受鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)治疗。呼吸暂停、呼吸窘迫进展、鼻出血和烦躁的发生被定义为通气失败。还观察了失败后插管和再次插管的需求。

结果

两组间出生特征无显著差异。接受鼻CPAP治疗的25例(62.5%)新生儿和接受NIPPV治疗的12例(30%)新生儿出现通气支持失败,表明无创通气失败与缺乏间歇正压有关(优势比[OR]1.22,P<.05)。呼吸暂停(32.5%)是鼻CPAP失败的主要原因。失败后,接受鼻CPAP治疗的新生儿中有25%(OR 0.33)和接受NIPPV治疗的新生儿中有12.5%(OR 0.14)需要有创机械通气。

结论

使用鼻CPAP时,通气支持失败的频率明显更高。

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