• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

32周及以下早产儿鼻双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)与鼻持续气道正压通气(CPAP)的比较:一项回顾性队列研究。

Nasal bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preterm infants ≤32 weeks: A retrospective cohort study.

作者信息

Rong Zhi-Hui, Li Wen-Bin, Liu Wei, Cai Bao-Huan, Wang Jing, Yang Min, Li Wei, Chang Li-Wen

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

出版信息

J Paediatr Child Health. 2016 May;52(5):493-8. doi: 10.1111/jpc.13175.

DOI:10.1111/jpc.13175
PMID:27329903
Abstract

AIM

To investigate whether Bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP), compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), is a more effective therapeutic strategy in preterm infants ≤32 weeks.

METHODS

All inborn infants between 26(+1) and 32(+6) weeks' gestation, admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU ) of Tongji Medical Hospital between 1 January, 2010 and 31 December, 2011 (the 2010-2011 cohort or CPAP cohort) and between 1 January, 2012 and 31 December, 2013 (the 2012-2013 cohort or BiPAP cohort), were retrospectively identified. The primary outcome was intubation in infants < 72 h of age; secondary outcomes were mortality and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).

RESULTS

There were 213 in the 2010-2011 cohort and 243 infants in the 2012-2013 cohort. There were fewer infants intubated within the first 72 h of age in the 2012-2013 cohort than in the 2010-2011 cohort (15% vs. 23%, P < 0.05). Of the infants who received some form of positive airway pressure, 12/94 (13%) of infants on BiPAP versus 23/74 (31%) on CPAP were subsequently intubated (P < 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of moderate and severe BPD between the two groups (7% vs. 8%, P=0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort study, we found BiPAP, compared with CPAP, reduced the need for intubation within the first 72 h of age.

摘要

目的

探讨双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)与经鼻持续气道正压通气(CPAP)相比,对孕周≤32周的早产儿是否为更有效的治疗策略。

方法

回顾性纳入2010年1月1日至2011年12月31日(2010 - 2011队列或CPAP队列)以及2012年1月1日至2013年12月31日(2012 - 2013队列或BiPAP队列)期间入住同济医院新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)的所有孕26(+1)至32(+6)周的足月儿。主要结局是年龄<72小时的婴儿插管情况;次要结局是死亡率和支气管肺发育不良(BPD)的发生率。

结果

2010 - 2011队列中有213例婴儿,2012 - 2013队列中有243例婴儿。2012 - 2013队列中年龄<72小时内插管的婴儿比2010 - 2011队列少(15%对23%,P<0.05)。在接受某种形式气道正压通气的婴儿中,BiPAP组12/94(13%)的婴儿随后插管,而CPAP组为23/74(31%)(P<0.01)。两组中重度BPD的发生率无差异(7%对8%,P = 0.52)。

结论

在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们发现与CPAP相比,BiPAP降低了年龄<72小时内的插管需求。

相似文献

1
Nasal bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preterm infants ≤32 weeks: A retrospective cohort study.32周及以下早产儿鼻双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)与鼻持续气道正压通气(CPAP)的比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
J Paediatr Child Health. 2016 May;52(5):493-8. doi: 10.1111/jpc.13175.
2
Bi-level Nasal Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Preterm Infants with Birth Weight Less Than 1500 g and Respiratory Distress Syndrome Following INSURE Treatment: A Two-center Randomized Controlled Trial.经 INSURE 治疗后体重小于 1500 克的伴有呼吸窘迫综合征的早产儿使用双水平鼻气道正压通气(BiPAP)与持续气道正压通气(CPAP)的效果比较:一项两中心随机对照试验。
Curr Med Sci. 2021 Jun;41(3):542-547. doi: 10.1007/s11596-021-2372-8. Epub 2021 Jun 15.
3
[Application of three kinds of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation as a primary mode of ventilation in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial].[三种无创正压通气作为呼吸窘迫综合征早产儿主要通气模式的应用:一项随机对照试验]
Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2014 Jan;52(1):34-40.
4
Randomized controlled trial of two methods of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (N-CPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: underwater bubbly CPAP vs. Medijet system device.两种鼻持续气道正压通气(N-CPAP)方法用于呼吸窘迫综合征早产儿的随机对照试验:水下气泡式CPAP与Medijet系统设备对比
Turk J Pediatr. 2012 Nov-Dec;54(6):632-40.
5
Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised control trial.经鼻持续气道正压通气(CPAP)与双水平经鼻 CPAP 治疗呼吸窘迫综合征早产儿的随机对照试验。
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010 Mar;95(2):F85-9. doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.169219. Epub 2009 Nov 29.
6
Is it safer to intubate premature infants in the delivery room?在产房为早产儿插管更安全吗?
Pediatrics. 2005 Jun;115(6):1660-5. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2493.
7
Nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation within the minimally invasive surfactant therapy approach in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial.在早产儿微创表面活性剂治疗方法中,鼻持续气道正压通气与鼻间歇正压通气的比较:一项随机对照试验。
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016 Jul;101(4):F323-8. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308204. Epub 2015 Nov 9.
8
A randomized controlled trial of two nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels after extubation in preterm infants.经鼻持续气道正压通气两种水平用于拔管后早产儿的随机对照试验
J Pediatr. 2014 Jan;164(1):46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.08.040. Epub 2013 Oct 1.
9
Nasal CPAP or intubation at birth for very preterm infants.极早产儿出生时采用鼻持续气道正压通气(Nasal CPAP)或插管。
N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 14;358(7):700-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa072788.
10
Delivery room continuous positive airway pressure/positive end-expiratory pressure in extremely low birth weight infants: a feasibility trial.极低出生体重儿产房持续气道正压通气/呼气末正压通气:一项可行性试验
Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):651-7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-0394.

引用本文的文献

1
The Intertemporal Role of Respiratory Support in Improving Neonatal Outcomes: A Narrative Review.呼吸支持在改善新生儿结局中的跨期作用:一项叙述性综述
Children (Basel). 2021 Oct 2;8(10):883. doi: 10.3390/children8100883.
2
Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure for Non-invasive Respiratory Support of Foals.用于新生马驹无创呼吸支持的双水平气道正压通气
Front Vet Sci. 2021 Sep 29;8:741720. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.741720. eCollection 2021.
3
Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
双水平正压通气与鼻塞持续气道正压通气治疗呼吸窘迫综合征早产儿的随机对照研究。
BMC Pediatr. 2021 Jul 6;21(1):301. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02741-w.
4
Non-invasive Ventilation for Children With Chronic Lung Disease.慢性肺病患儿的无创通气
Front Pediatr. 2020 Nov 11;8:561639. doi: 10.3389/fped.2020.561639. eCollection 2020.
5
SpO2, heart rate, and arterial blood pressure during successful or failed application of non-invasive ventilation after delivery - a single-centre study.分娩后无创通气成功或失败时的 SpO2、心率和动脉血压 - 一项单中心研究。
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2020;52(4):304-311. doi: 10.5114/ait.2020.100574.
6
Practical aspects on the use of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants.早产儿无创呼吸支持应用的实践要点
Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2020 Mar;7(1):19-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.02.005. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
7
Risk factors for BiPAP failure as an initial management approach in moderate to late preterm infants with respiratory distress.在中度至晚期早产儿呼吸窘迫中,双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)作为初始治疗方法失败的危险因素。
Clin Exp Pediatr. 2020 Feb;63(2):63-65. doi: 10.3345/kjp.2019.01361. Epub 2020 Feb 15.
8
Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (HHHFNC) is not an effective method for initial treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) versus nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP).与经鼻间歇正压通气(NIMV)和经鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)相比,加热湿化高流量鼻导管(HHHFNC)并非治疗呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)初始阶段的有效方法。
J Res Med Sci. 2019 Aug 28;24:73. doi: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_2_19. eCollection 2019.
9
Current insights in non-invasive ventilation for the treatment of neonatal respiratory disease.当前关于新生儿呼吸疾病无创通气治疗的新见解。
Ital J Pediatr. 2019 Aug 19;45(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s13052-019-0707-x.
10
Sleep Abnormalities in Multiple Sclerosis.多发性硬化症中的睡眠异常
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2019 Jan 31;21(1):4. doi: 10.1007/s11940-019-0544-7.