Pediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society · 2018
Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation in preterm infants born before 30 weeks' gestation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yonehara Kousuke, Ogawa Ryo, Kamei Yoshiya, Oda Arata, Kokubo Masayo, Hiroma Takehiko, Nakamura Tomohiko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA), a mode of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) controlled by diaphragmatic electrical activity, may be superior to other NIV as a respiratory support after extubation in preterm infants, but no report has compared NIV-NAVA with other NIV methods. We evaluated the effectiveness and adverse effects of NIV-NAVA after extubation in preterm infants <30 weeks of gestation.
METHODS: This retrospective study involved patients who were born before 30 weeks of gestation. We mainly used NIV-NAVA or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) for preterm infants as the NIV after extubation and compared these two groups. The primary outcome was treatment failure. The secondary outcomes were extubation failure and adverse events. Treatment failure was defined as a change of NIV (NIPPV was switched to NIV-NAVA, or NIV-NAVA was switched to NIPPV) or reintubation ≤7 days after extubation.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were in the NIV-NAVA group, and 19 were in the NIPPV group. The gestational age of the NIV-NAVA group was younger than that of the NIPPV group (25.7 ± 2.4 weeks vs 27.3 ± 1.8 weeks). Treatment failure occurred in six cases (40%) in the NIV-NAVA group and in nine cases (47.4%) in the NIPPV group, and no significant difference was demonstrated. No significant difference in adverse events was noted.
CONCLUSIONS: NIV-NAVA has advantages compared with NIPPV as the NIV for premature infants after extubation. NIV-NAVA can also be used safely without a significant difference in the rate of complications compared with NIPPV.
METHODS: This retrospective study involved patients who were born before 30 weeks of gestation. We mainly used NIV-NAVA or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) for preterm infants as the NIV after extubation and compared these two groups. The primary outcome was treatment failure. The secondary outcomes were extubation failure and adverse events. Treatment failure was defined as a change of NIV (NIPPV was switched to NIV-NAVA, or NIV-NAVA was switched to NIPPV) or reintubation ≤7 days after extubation.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were in the NIV-NAVA group, and 19 were in the NIPPV group. The gestational age of the NIV-NAVA group was younger than that of the NIPPV group (25.7 ± 2.4 weeks vs 27.3 ± 1.8 weeks). Treatment failure occurred in six cases (40%) in the NIV-NAVA group and in nine cases (47.4%) in the NIPPV group, and no significant difference was demonstrated. No significant difference in adverse events was noted.
CONCLUSIONS: NIV-NAVA has advantages compared with NIPPV as the NIV for premature infants after extubation. NIV-NAVA can also be used safely without a significant difference in the rate of complications compared with NIPPV.