Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Am J Perinatol. 2022 Dec;39(16):1828-1834. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1727159. Epub 2021 Apr 14.
The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following receipt of high continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in extremely preterm neonates.
We retrospectively compared outcomes of preterm neonates (22-28 weeks' gestation) following their first episode of either high CPAP (≥ 9 cm HO) or NIPPV. Primary outcome was failure of high CPAP or NIPPV within 7 days, as determined by either need for intubation or use of an alternate noninvasive mode.
During the 3-year study period, 53 infants received high CPAP, while 119 patients received NIPPV. There were no differences in the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.21; 95% confidence interval 0.49-3.01). The use of alternate mode of noninvasive support was higher with the use of high CPAP but no other outcome differences were noted.
Based on this cohort, there was no difference in incidence of failure between high CPAP and NIPPV, although infants receiving high CPAP were more likely to require an alternate mode of noninvasive support.
· Use of high CPAP pressures (defined as ≥9 cm H2O) is gradually increasing during care of preterm neonates.. · Limited data exists regarding its efficacy and safety.. · This study compares high CPAP with NIPPV, and demonstrates comparable short-term clinical outcomes..
本研究旨在比较接受高持续气道正压通气(CPAP)与经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)治疗的极早产儿的结局。
我们回顾性比较了接受首次高 CPAP(≥9cmH2O)或 NIPPV 治疗的早产儿(22-28 周胎龄)的结局。主要结局是 7 天内高 CPAP 或 NIPPV 治疗失败,表现为需要插管或使用替代无创模式。
在 3 年的研究期间,53 名婴儿接受了高 CPAP,119 名婴儿接受了 NIPPV。主要结局(调整后的优势比 1.21;95%置信区间 0.49-3.01)无差异。虽然使用高 CPAP 的婴儿更有可能需要替代的无创支持模式,但使用替代模式的无创支持的使用率更高。
根据本队列,高 CPAP 与 NIPPV 治疗失败的发生率无差异,尽管接受高 CPAP 的婴儿更有可能需要替代的无创支持模式。
· 在早产儿的护理中,高 CPAP 压力(定义为≥9cmH2O)的使用逐渐增加。· 关于其疗效和安全性的数据有限。· 本研究比较了高 CPAP 与 NIPPV,并证明了短期临床结局相当。