Louie Kevin, Amatya Shaili, Alpan Gad, Parton Lance A
Division of Newborn Medicine, Maria Fareri Children's Hospital, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical Center, Valhalla, NY 10595, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Children (Basel). 2024 Sep 28;11(10):1184. doi: 10.3390/children11101184.
This study investigates the effectiveness of extubation from conventional mechanical ventilation using an endotracheal tube (MVET) compared to synchronized non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation (sNIPPV) using neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) and conventional non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants. An institutional review board (IRB) approved this study (#12175) to conduct a single-center randomized control trial including 60 ELBW infants assigned in a one-to-one computer-generated scheme to either sNIPPV using NAVA or NIPPV. The primary outcome involved the need for reintubation, and the secondary outcome involved the assessment of moderate/severe BPD, defined as an oxygen requirement at 36 weeks, as in #NCT03613987 (clinicaltrials.gov). There were 60 ELBW infants enrolled and randomized. The overall gestational age was 26 (1.5) weeks, and the birth weight was 773 (157) g [mean (SD)]. There were no statistically significant differences between the NAVA and NIPPV patient characteristics. There was a 41% extubation failure rate in the NIPPV group and 35% in the NAVA group ( = NS). The NAVA group had less moderate and severe BPD ( = 0.03), a shorter oxygen therapy duration ( = 0.002), a decreased length of stay ( = 0.03), and less need for home oxygen (0, 43%; = 0.0004). This study found similar extubation failure rates among ELBW infants as in prior studies. However, the NAVA group had lower rates of moderate/severe BPD and need for oxygen at discharge, as well as shorter oxygen therapy duration and length of stay. The use of NAVA may be a reasonable alternative mode of non-invasive ventilation in the ELBW population.
本研究调查了极低出生体重(ELBW)婴儿从使用气管内导管的传统机械通气撤机(MVET)与使用神经调节通气辅助(NAVA)的同步无创正压通气(sNIPPV)及传统无创正压通气(NIPPV)相比的有效性。一个机构审查委员会(IRB)批准了本研究(#12175)以进行一项单中心随机对照试验,该试验纳入60名ELBW婴儿,采用一对一计算机生成方案将其分配至使用NAVA的sNIPPV组或NIPPV组。主要结局包括再次插管的需求,次要结局包括对中度/重度支气管肺发育不良(BPD)的评估,如#NCT03613987(clinicaltrials.gov)中所定义,即36周时的氧需求。共有60名ELBW婴儿入组并被随机分组。总体胎龄为26(1.5)周,出生体重为773(157)g[均值(标准差)]。NAVA组和NIPPV组患者特征在统计学上无显著差异。NIPPV组撤机失败率为41%,NAVA组为35%(P = 无统计学意义)。NAVA组中度和重度BPD较少(P = 0.03),氧疗持续时间较短(P = 0.002),住院时间缩短(P = 0.03),且家庭氧需求较少(0例,43%;P = 0.0004)。本研究发现ELBW婴儿的撤机失败率与既往研究相似。然而,NAVA组中度/重度BPD发生率及出院时氧需求率较低,且氧疗持续时间和住院时间较短。在ELBW人群中,使用NAVA可能是一种合理的无创通气替代模式。