Gao Ya, Chen Xin, Zhang Zhen, Qu Sehua, Sang Xu, Wu Yumeng, Zhou Rui, Peng Wansheng, Chen Yun, Wang Yue, Zhuo Feixiang, Chen Li
Department of Pediatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu 233004, Anhui, China. Corresponding author: Chen Xin, Email:
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2022 Jan;34(1):80-84. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20210602-00815.
To investigate the efficacy and safety of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) combined with inhalation of pulmonary surfactant (PS) using vibrating mesh nebulizers in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
A prospective study was performed on premature infants with RDS admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College between December 2020 and June 2021. They were randomly assigned into vibrating mesh atomization technology group and intubation-surfactant-extubation (INSURE) technology group. The two groups were treated with NCPAP combined with PS. PS in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group was inhaled into the lungs by the new vibrating mesh atomization technology, while PS in the INSURE group was injected into the lungs by endotracheal tube. The pH value, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO), oxygenation index (PaO/FiO), mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube (MVET) demand rate, duration of respiratory support, secondary use of PS, complications, and hospital mortality were compared between the two groups. The occurrences of adverse events in the two groups were recorded.
A total of 42 preterm infants were finally enrolled, including 20 cases in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group and 22 cases in the INSURE technology group. There were no significant differences in blood gas analysis and PaO/FiO before PS administration between the two groups. One hour after PS administration, blood gas analysis and PaO/FiO were significantly improved in both groups. Compared with the INSURE technology group, the improvement of PaO/FiO was more obvious in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group [mmHg (1 mmHg≈0.133 kPa): 198±34 vs. 173±39, P < 0.05], but no significant difference in pH value or PaCO was found between the two groups. The duration of respiratory support in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group was significantly shorter than that in the INSURE technology group (hours: 96±13 vs. 120±18, P < 0.01), but there was no statistical difference in MVET demand rate [5.0% (1/20) vs. 13.6% (3/22), P > 0.05]. The incidence of periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage (PVH-IVH) in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group was less than that in the INSURE technology group [0% (0/20) vs. 18.2% (4/22)], but no statistical difference was found (P > 0.05). No significant differences in the secondary use rate of PS and incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or other complications were found between the vibrating mesh atomization technology group and the INSURE technology group [5.0% (1/20) vs. 9.1% (2/22), 5.0% (1/20) vs. 4.5% (1/22), both P > 0.05]. There were no deaths or serious adverse events such as pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in both groups.
Compared with the INSURE technique, NCPAP combined with vibrating mesh atomization technology was also effective and safe in the treatment of RDS, which could significantly improve PaO/FiO and shorten the duration of respiratory support. Thus, it was worthy of clinical popularization and application.
探讨经鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)联合振动筛孔雾化器吸入肺表面活性物质(PS)治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)的疗效及安全性。
对2020年12月至2021年6月蚌埠医学院第一附属医院收治的RDS早产儿进行前瞻性研究。将其随机分为振动筛孔雾化技术组和气管插管-肺表面活性物质-拔管(INSURE)技术组。两组均采用NCPAP联合PS治疗。振动筛孔雾化技术组的PS通过新型振动筛孔雾化技术吸入肺内,而INSURE组的PS通过气管导管注入肺内。比较两组的pH值、动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO)、氧合指数(PaO/FiO)、气管插管机械通气(MVET)需求率、呼吸支持时间、PS二次使用情况、并发症及住院死亡率。记录两组不良事件的发生情况。
最终纳入42例早产儿,其中振动筛孔雾化技术组20例,INSURE技术组22例。两组在给予PS前的血气分析及PaO/FiO无显著差异。给予PS 1小时后,两组血气分析及PaO/FiO均显著改善。与INSURE技术组相比,振动筛孔雾化技术组PaO/FiO改善更明显[mmHg(1 mmHg≈0.133 kPa):198±34 vs. 173±39,P<0.05],但两组pH值或PaCO无显著差异。振动筛孔雾化技术组呼吸支持时间显著短于INSURE技术组(小时:96±13 vs. 120±18,P<0.01),但MVET需求率无统计学差异[5.0%(1/20)vs. 13.6%(3/22),P>0.05]。振动筛孔雾化技术组脑室周围-脑室内出血(PVH-IVH)发生率低于INSURE技术组[0%(0/20)vs. 18.2%(4/22)],但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。振动筛孔雾化技术组与INSURE技术组在PS二次使用率、支气管肺发育不良(BPD)发生率或其他并发症方面无显著差异[5.0%(1/20)vs. 9.1%(2/22),5.0%(1/20)vs. 4.5%(1/22),均P>0.05]。两组均无死亡或气胸、肺出血、脑室周围白质软化(PVL)、早产儿视网膜病变(ROP)、坏死性小肠结肠炎(NEC)等严重不良事件发生。
与INSURE技术相比,NCPAP联合振动筛孔雾化技术治疗RDS同样有效且安全,可显著提高PaO/FiO并缩短呼吸支持时间。因此,值得临床推广应用。