Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2017
[Application of humidified high-flow nasal cannula in neonates with meconium aspiration syndrome and pulmonary hypertension after extubation].
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Gao Xiao-Yan, Feng Lin, Qiu Yu-Fen, Pan Xin-Nian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical value of humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) as a respiratory support after extubation by comparing it with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in neonates with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN).
METHODS: A total of 78 neonates with MAS and PPHN were randomly administered with HHFNC or NCPAP immediately after extubation. The following indices were compared between the two groups: blood gas parameters, duration of noninvasive ventilation, rate of extubation failure, and incidence of complications, such as nasal damage, abdominal distension, and intraventricular hemorrhage.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the rate of extubation failure, PaO2, PCO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio at one hour after NCPAP or HHFNC, duration of noninvasive ventilation, time to full enteral feeding, length of hospital stay, and incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage between the two groups (P>0.05). The HHFNC group had significantly lower incidence of nasal damage (5.0% vs 31.6%; P<0.05) and incidence of abdominal distension (7.5% vs 34.2%; P<0.05) than the NCPAP group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both NCPAP and HHFNC can be used as the sequential therapy for neonates with MSA and PPHN after extubation, and they both have a definite effect. As a new strategy of respiratory support, HHFNC is better tolerated, and has fewer side effects than NCPAP.
METHODS: A total of 78 neonates with MAS and PPHN were randomly administered with HHFNC or NCPAP immediately after extubation. The following indices were compared between the two groups: blood gas parameters, duration of noninvasive ventilation, rate of extubation failure, and incidence of complications, such as nasal damage, abdominal distension, and intraventricular hemorrhage.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the rate of extubation failure, PaO2, PCO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio at one hour after NCPAP or HHFNC, duration of noninvasive ventilation, time to full enteral feeding, length of hospital stay, and incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage between the two groups (P>0.05). The HHFNC group had significantly lower incidence of nasal damage (5.0% vs 31.6%; P<0.05) and incidence of abdominal distension (7.5% vs 34.2%; P<0.05) than the NCPAP group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both NCPAP and HHFNC can be used as the sequential therapy for neonates with MSA and PPHN after extubation, and they both have a definite effect. As a new strategy of respiratory support, HHFNC is better tolerated, and has fewer side effects than NCPAP.