Early nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus INSURE in VLBW neonates.

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests the INSURE strategy (INtubate-SURfactant administration and Extubate to nasal continuous positive airway pressure [nCPAP]) is superior to mechanical ventilation (MV) with rescue surfactant for the management of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates. There is limited data, however, to assess whether INSURE is superior to nCPAP alone. We aimed to compare these two strategies regarding early and late outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study from Jan/2002 to Aug/2008. We included VLBW neonates with gestational age (GA) ≤ 30 weeks registered in the Vermont Oxford Network that used either nCPAP alone (nCPAP group, N=40), or with INSURE (INSURE group, N=56). We assessed early (RDS, need for rescue surfactant, and CPAP failure with MV) and late outcomes (chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD), mortality, and composite outcome of mortality and/or CLD).

RESULTS

Neonates in the INSURE group had lower mean GA, while other baseline variables were comparable. The proportion of RDS was significantly superior in the nCPAP group (53% vs. 30%; adjusted OR [95% CI] - 0.2 [0.1-0.6]). Therapeutic surfactant was administered to all cases with RDS in the nCPAP group, but to none from the INSURE group. MV was more frequently required in the nCPAP group (11/ 40, 28% vs. 9/ 56, 12%; p=0.04). No statistically significant differences were found in either of the late outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of nCPAP alone in VLBW neonates with GA ≤ 30 weeks may be associated with slightly poorer early outcomes than the INSURE strategy, but there were no significant differences in CLD or mortality.