Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
Safety of bubble nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
John Stephen C, Garg Mehak, Muttineni Mounika, Brearley Ann M, Rao Praveen, Bhandari Vineet, Slusher Tina, Murki Srinivas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) is an effective therapy for infants in respiratory distress. We here report the safety of a novel, low-cost, non-electric bubble NIPPV device in comparison with bubble NCPAP.
STUDY DESIGN: At Paramitha Children's Hospital (Hyderabad, India), preterm (n = 60) neonates with moderate respiratory distress were pragmatically allocated to bubble NCPAP (5-8 cm H2O) or bubble NIPPV (Phigh 8-12 cm H2O/Plow 5-8 cm H2O) based on staff and equipment availability. Primary outcomes to assess safety included clinically relevant pneumothorax, nasal septal necrosis, or abdominal distention.
RESULTS: One patient in each arm developed minor nasal septal injury (grade 3 on NCPAP, grade 2 on NIPPV); no patients in either arm developed a clinically significant pneumothorax or abdominal distention.
CONCLUSION: The similar rates of nasal septal injury, pneumothorax and abdominal distention suggest that bubble NIPPV has a similar safety profile as bubble NCPAP for preterm infants in respiratory distress.
STUDY DESIGN: At Paramitha Children's Hospital (Hyderabad, India), preterm (n = 60) neonates with moderate respiratory distress were pragmatically allocated to bubble NCPAP (5-8 cm H2O) or bubble NIPPV (Phigh 8-12 cm H2O/Plow 5-8 cm H2O) based on staff and equipment availability. Primary outcomes to assess safety included clinically relevant pneumothorax, nasal septal necrosis, or abdominal distention.
RESULTS: One patient in each arm developed minor nasal septal injury (grade 3 on NCPAP, grade 2 on NIPPV); no patients in either arm developed a clinically significant pneumothorax or abdominal distention.
CONCLUSION: The similar rates of nasal septal injury, pneumothorax and abdominal distention suggest that bubble NIPPV has a similar safety profile as bubble NCPAP for preterm infants in respiratory distress.