Early human development · 2025
Nasal DUOPAP vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome - A randomized control trial.
Equivalence TrialСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaur Harkirat, Singh Anita, Naranje Kirti M, Gupta Girish, Solanki Preeti Singh, Mishra Prabhakar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There has been major shift in choice of respiratory support in preterm babies from invasive to non-invasive. There are various modes of non-invasive respiratory support. The comparative efficacy of one mode over another is an important research area.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness of Nasal duo positive airway pressure (NDUOPAP) vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in reducing need of mechanical ventilation in preterms ≤35 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress syndrome.
DESIGN: Open label, non-inferiority Randomized controlled trial.
SUBJECTS: 122 Neonates with GA ≤ 35 weeks (61 in NDUOPAP and 61 in NCPAP) with RDS & Silverman Andersen score ≥ 4, admitted to NICU.
PRIMARY OUTCOME: Failure of allocated modes within first 120 h after birth.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between NDUOPAP: 11(18 %) and NCPAP:12(19.7 %) in treatment failure at the first 120 h of birth (p = 0.817). The morbidities including Patent Ductus Arteriosus, Pneumothorax, Intraventricular Hemorrhage, Sepsis, Necrotizing Enterocoilitis, Apnea of prematurity, Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia, Retinopathy of prematurity & mortality were similar between the two groups. The duration of non-invasive respiratory support, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy were also not significantly different. However the need for surfactant was lower in the NDUOPAP group when compared to NCPAP (p = 0.018).
CONCLUSIONS: NDUOPAP compared to NCPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 120 h of birth in preterms with RDS.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness of Nasal duo positive airway pressure (NDUOPAP) vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in reducing need of mechanical ventilation in preterms ≤35 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress syndrome.
DESIGN: Open label, non-inferiority Randomized controlled trial.
SUBJECTS: 122 Neonates with GA ≤ 35 weeks (61 in NDUOPAP and 61 in NCPAP) with RDS & Silverman Andersen score ≥ 4, admitted to NICU.
PRIMARY OUTCOME: Failure of allocated modes within first 120 h after birth.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between NDUOPAP: 11(18 %) and NCPAP:12(19.7 %) in treatment failure at the first 120 h of birth (p = 0.817). The morbidities including Patent Ductus Arteriosus, Pneumothorax, Intraventricular Hemorrhage, Sepsis, Necrotizing Enterocoilitis, Apnea of prematurity, Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia, Retinopathy of prematurity & mortality were similar between the two groups. The duration of non-invasive respiratory support, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy were also not significantly different. However the need for surfactant was lower in the NDUOPAP group when compared to NCPAP (p = 0.018).
CONCLUSIONS: NDUOPAP compared to NCPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 120 h of birth in preterms with RDS.