Nonsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure as a primary mode of respiratory support in neonates (26−40 weeks) admitted in a tertiary care center: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a standard respiratory care for neonates for last few decades but it too has a high failure rate. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is proven to be superior to CPAP in maintaining higher mean airway pressure in neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The main objective of this study was to compare failure within 72 h of initiation of primary respiratory support between nonsynchronized NIPPV and CPAP in all causes of respiratory distress in newborn infants. Secondarily feed intolerance, Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC > stage II), hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH > gradeIII), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), duration of support and mortality were also compared.MethodsThis was a single center randomized controlled trial. Stratified randomization was done for 216 neonates, based on the gestational age in two subgroups 26−33 weeks and 34−40 weeks whopresented with respiratory distress within 5 days of birth, to receive either NIPPV or CPAP. Primary and secondary outcomes were documented.ResultsStatisticalsignificant difference was noted for primary outcome (RR 0.48 [confidence interval = 0.301−0.786], p = 0.003) but not for other secondary outcomes. NIPPV appeared superior in respect to noninvasiveventilation days, BPD occurrence and hospitalization duration.ConclusionAs a primary mode, nonsynchronized NIPPV was more efficacious than CPAP in preventing intubation within 72 h of initiation of respiratory support. Further multicenter studies are warranted to explore the benefits of this respiratory support.