Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in neonates.

Methods

Standard search strategy for the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was performed. The participants were both preterm and term infants suffering from neonatal respiratory distress syndrome or experiencing apnea of prematurity.

Results

14 eligible andomized controlled trials involving 1052 newborn infants were included. The study quality and evidence validity was defined as moderate. As compared with nCPAP, NIPPV significantly reduced the incidence of endotracheal ventilation (OR=0.44, 95%CI:0.31–0.63), increased the successful rate of extubation (OR=0.15, 95%CI:0.08–0.31), and had a better outcome indicated by decreased death and/or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (OR=0.57, 95%CI:0.37–0.88). Moreover, NIPPV decreased the number of apneic episodes of prematurity (WMD=?0.48, 95%CI:?0.58–0.37), and marginally decreased the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (OR=0.63, 95%CI:0.39–1.00). No side effects specifically associated with NIPPV were reported.

Conclusions

NIPPV could be used to reduce endotracheal ventilation, increase successful extubation, decrease the rate of apnea of prematurity, and have better outcome indicated by fewer death and/or bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm and term newborn infants.     

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To determine whether nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is more effective in preterm infants than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in reducing the rate of extubation failure following mechanical ventilation, and reducing the frequency of apnoea of prematurity and subsequent need for endotracheal intubation. Methods: Randomized trials of NIPPV versus NCPAP were sought and their data extracted and analysed independently by the authors using the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. The analysis used relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The three studies identified, comparing NIPPV with NCPAP in the postextubation period, all used synchronized NIPPV (SNIPPV), which was more effective than NCPAP in preventing failure of extubation [RR 0.21 (0.10, 0.45), RD 30.32 (30.45, 30.20), NNT 3 (2, 5)]. Two studies compared NIPPV versus NCPAP for the treatment of apnoea of prematurity. Although meta-analysis was not possible one trial showed a reduction in apnoea frequency with NIPPV and the other a trend favouring NIPPV. Conclusion: SNIPPV is an effective method of augmenting the beneficial effects of NCPAP in preterm infants in the postextubation period. Further research is required to delineate the role of NIPPV in the management of apnoea of prematurity.     

Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome

Aim:  To determine whether early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), in comparison to early continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), can reduce the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates with suspected respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
Methods:  In this stratified open-label randomized controlled trial, neonates (28–34 weeks gestation) with respiratory distress within 6 h of birth and Downe's score ≥ 4 were eligible. Subjects were randomly allocated to 'early-NIPPV' or 'early-CPAP' after stratifying for gestation (28–30 weeks, 31–34 weeks) and surfactant use. Primary outcome was failure of the allocated mode within 48 h.
Results:  Seventy-six neonates were enrolled (37 in 'early-NIPPV' and 39 in 'early-CPAP' groups). Failure rate was less with 'early-NIPPV' versus 'early-CPAP'[13.5% vs. 35.9%, respectively, RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.15–0.89), p = 0.024]. Similarly, need for intubation and mechanical ventilation by 7 days (18.9% vs. 41%, p = 0.036) was less with NIPPV. Failure rate with NIPPV was less in the subgroups of subjects born at 28–30 weeks (p = 0.023) and who did not receive surfactant (p = 0.018).
Conclusion:  Among preterm infants with suspected RDS, early use of NIPPV reduces the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation compared to CPAP.     

���Ǽ�Ъ��ѹͨ���뾭�dz�����ѹͨ���������������������ۺ�����Ч�Ƚ�

目的评价经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)与经鼻持续正压通气(NCPAP)治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(NRDS)的疗效。方法选择2010年1月至2011年11月入住河北省儿童医院新生儿重症监护室(NICU)的NRDS患儿66例,随机分为NIPPV组(32例)和NCPAP组(34例),分别于入院0、12、24、72h进行血气分析,比较氧合改善情况、氧疗时间、呼吸机使用时间及并发症和预后等。结果治疗开始时(入院0h)两组PaO2、PaCO2差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗12、24、72h后PaO2、PaCO2、P/F、a/APO2均有改善(P均<0.05),且NIPPV组改善情况优于NCPAP组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。两组患儿CO2潴留、腹胀发生率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),且NIPPV组开奶时间较NCPAP组提前。NIPPV组经鼻通气治疗失败后改为插管行呼吸机通气率明显低于NCPAP组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 NIPPV较NCPAP能在短时间内明显改善肺部氧合功能,缩短无创辅助通气及氧疗时间,减少了CO2潴留、腹胀的发生率,且开奶时间提前,降低了气管插管呼吸机上机率。     

经鼻间歇和持续气道正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的Meta分析

目的 评价经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)和经鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(NRDS)的疗效.方法 检索PubMed、EMBASE、Ovid、Springer、中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库和维普中文科技期刊数据库,获得NIPPV与NCPAP治疗NRDS的相关RCT文献.根据随机分配方法,分配...     

High-flow nasal cannulae in the management of apnea of prematurity: a comparison with conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure

Apnea of prematurity (AOP) is frequently managed with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). Nasal cannula (NC) are used at low flows (<0.5 L/min) to deliver supplemental oxygen to neonates. A number of centers use high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in the management of AOP without measuring the positive distending pressure (PDP) generated. Objective. To determine the NC flow required to generate PDP equal to that provided by NCPAP at 6 cm H(2)O and to assess the effectiveness of HFNC as compared NCPAP in the management of AOP. Method. Forty premature infants, gestation 28.7 +/- 0.4 weeks (mean +/- standard error of mean), postconceptual age at study 30.3 +/- 0.6 weeks, birth weight 1256 +/- 66 g, study weight 1260 +/- 63 g who were being managed with conventional NCPAP for at least 24 hours for clinically significant apnea of prematurity, were enrolled in a trial of ventilator-generated conventional NCPAP versus infant NC at flows of up to 2.5 L/min. End expiratory esophageal pressure was measured on NCPAP and on NC, and the gas flow on NC was adjusted to generate an end expiratory esophageal pressure equal to that measured on NCPAP. Two 6-hour periods were continuously recorded and the data were stored on computer. Results. The flow required to generate a comparable PDP with NC varied with the infant's weight and was represented by the equation: flow (L/min) = 0.92 + 0.68x, x = weight in kg, R = 0.72. There was no difference in the frequency and duration of apnea, bradycardia or desaturation per recording between the 2 systems. Conclusion. NC at flows of 1 to 2.5 L/min can deliver PDP in premature neonates. HFNC is as effective as NCPAP in the management of AOP.     

经鼻间歇正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸衰竭的随机对照研究

目的比较经鼻间歇正压通气(nIPPV)与经鼻持续气道正压通气（nCPAP）在新生儿呼吸衰竭中的疗效。方法采用RCT研究的方法,选择2008年1 ~12月在第三军医大学大坪医院NICU住院的呼吸衰竭新生儿作为研究对象,按随机数字表法将研究对象随机分为nIPPV组和nCPAP组,分别实施nIPPV 或nCPAP干预,观察患儿动脉血气分析、应用nIPPV和nCPAP时间、并发症和预后等指标,比较nIPPV组和nCPAP组治疗后需气管插管行机械通气的比例及其预后结局。结果研究期间nIPPV组纳入48例,nCPAP组纳入53例。两组在性别构成比、胎龄、年龄、出生体重、出生后5 min Apgar评分、新生儿急性生理学评分和应用肺表面活性物质比例等方面差异无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。两组呼吸衰竭原发病分布差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组治疗前血气分析指标差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）,nIPPV组治疗后1 h血气分析pH和PaO2显著高于nCPAP组（P<0.05）。nIPPV组治疗成功率为77.1%(37/48例),nCPAP组为62.3%（33/53例）,nIPPV组显著高于nCPAP组（P<0.05）。nIPPV组和nCPAP组治疗成功的患儿平均应用nIPPV和nCPAP的时间差异无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。nIPPV组的预后结局中治愈和好转出院45/48例（93.8%）, nCPAP组为46/53例（86.8%）,两组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论与nCPAP相比,nIPPV治疗可显著降低呼吸衰竭新生儿气管插管行机械通气的比例。     

Non-invasive respiratory support of preterm neonates with respiratory distress: continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation

Non-invasive techniques of respiratory support were developed in order to reduce the adverse effects associated with ventilation via an endotracheal tube. Short bi-nasal prongs provide the most effective nasal interface for delivery of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP). Devices used to generate CPAP include conventional ventilators, the 'bubbly bottle' system and the infant flow driver. NCPAP improves the rate of successful extubation. It is useful for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome, reducing time spent on an endotracheal tube and oxygen requirement at 28d. However, nCPAP is associated with an increased rate of pneumothorax. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is useful for augmenting the effectiveness of nCPAP. It further improves rates of successful extubation and shows promise as an initial method of respiratory support. Further research is required to determine the optimal settings for both nCPAP and NIPPV.     

经鼻同步间歇正压通气治疗早产儿呼吸暂停的临床研究

目的：比较经鼻同步间歇正压通气（NSIPPV）与经鼻持续气道正压通气（NCPAP）治疗早产儿呼吸暂停的疗效。方法：将2010年8月至2011年1月住院的80例呼吸暂停早产儿随机分为NSIPPV组与NCPAP组,每组40例,比较治疗前、治疗后2 h血气分析结果、上机时间、疗效和并发症。结果：治疗前两组血气分析结果的差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,治疗后2 h NSIPPV组的pH值、PaO2、PaCO2均明显优于NCPAP组（P＜0.05）;NSIPPV组上机时间（50±9 h）明显短于NCPAP组（91±11 h）,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）;两组治疗的总有效率（95% vs 85%）差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,但NSIPPV组3 d 内撤机的比例（23/40）明显高于NCPAP组（14/40）（P＜0.05）;两组并发症发生比率（22% vs 25%）差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：NSIPPV治疗早产儿呼吸暂停比NCPAP更有优势。     

鼻塞式同步间歇指令通气和持续气道正压通气在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征中的应用比较

目的：比较鼻塞式同步间歇指令通气(nSIMV)和鼻塞式持续气道正压通气（nCPAP）在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征（RDS）中的临床应用效果。方法：50例RDS早产儿,常规使用肺表面活性物质进行替代治疗后,随机分入nSIMV组或nCPAP组,观察治疗后临床症状和血气指标的变化。结果：nSIMV组需气管插管行呼吸机通气比率明显低于nCPAP组（24% vs 60%, P<0.05）;nSIMV组CO2潴留和低氧血症的比率分别为12%和24%,明显低于nCPAP组的40%和36%（P<0.05）。结论：nSIMV能更有效地对RDS早产儿进行呼吸支持治疗。［中国当代儿科杂志,2010,12（7）：524-526］     

新生儿经鼻间歇正压通气的研究进展

经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)是在经鼻持续气道正压通气(n CPAP)的基础上给予间歇正压通气,通过无创途径模拟间歇机械通气,为新生儿无创呼吸支持提供了新的选择。NIPPV在初始无创呼吸支持及拔管后呼吸支持方面较n CPAP具有一定优势,同时还有助于治疗较严重的早产儿呼吸暂停。尤其是同步NIPPV具有很好的应用前景。为了进一步认识和规范使用该项技术,就NIPPV在新生儿呼吸治疗中的应用进展进行综述。     

鼻塞式同步间歇指令通气和持续气道正压通气在治疗新生儿肺透明膜病中的疗效分析

目的比较鼻塞式同步间歇指令通气(nSIMV)和鼻塞持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)在新生儿肺透明膜病(HMD)临床应用效果。方法将新生儿重症监护病房收治的肺透明膜病新生儿79例,随机分为nSIMV组和nCPAP组,治疗后对两组新生儿的血气分析结果、无创通气方式失败例数及呼吸暂停发生例数进行统计分析。结果 nSIMV组新生儿治疗后血气分析与nCPAP组相比有明显改善;nSIMV组患儿使用无创通气方式失败例数、发生呼吸暂停例数较nCPAP组少,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论以nSIMV治疗HMD比nCPAP更能减少有创机械通气的使用,同时对于早产儿呼吸暂停可能更有效。     

早产极低出生体质量儿撤机后两种鼻塞式辅助通气方式的临床疗效比较

目的 比较在呼吸机撤机后的早产儿中应用鼻塞式同步间歇指令通气(nSIMV)和鼻塞式持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)的临床疗效.方法 52例需要使用气管插管、SIMV通气的早产儿,出生体质量<1 500 g,孕周<34周,当呼吸机参数降至FiO2<0.4,频率<20次/min,给予氨茶碱负荷量后拔除气管插管.患儿随机分为nSIMV组和nCPAP组.观察记录患儿撤机后72 h的临床情况.结果 两组患儿出生孕周、出生体质量、气管插管上机时间比较差异均无显著性(P>0.05).nSIMV组与nCPAP组比较,撤机失败率低、严重呼吸暂停较少、高碳酸血症和低氧血症发生率低,组间比较差异均有显著性(P<0.05).喂养不耐受、坏死性小肠结肠炎、呼吸机相关性肺炎、败血症、支气管肺发育不良和住院时间的组间比较差异无显著性(P>0.05).结论 nSIMV能更有效地对早产极低出生体质量儿撤机后进行呼吸支持.这一无创辅助通气方式将有更广阔的应用前景.     

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy for obstructive sleep apnea in Hallermann-Streiff syndrome

An 8-year-old girl with Hallermann-Streiff syndrome (oculomandibulofacial syndrome) was examined. She had a history of severe snoring, reported nocturnal apnea, excessive daytime hypersomnolence, nocturnal enuresis, and failure to thrive. Overnight polysomnography confirmed severe obstructive sleep apnea. Long-term nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy completely relieved the obstructive sleep apnea and was associated with improved weight gain and growth.