American journal of perinatology · 2021
Efficacy and Safety of Two Different Flow Rates of Nasal High-Flow Therapy in Preterm Neonates ≥28 Weeks of Gestation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Рандомизированное 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.
Balasubramanian Haribalakrishna, Sakharkar Sachin, Majarikar Swati, Srinivasan Lakshmi, Kabra Nandkishor S, Garg Bhawandeep, Ahmed Javed
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different nasal high-flow rates for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates STUDY DESIGN: In this single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, preterm neonates ≥28 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress from birth were randomized to treatment with either increased nasal flow therapy (8-10 L/min) or standard nasal flow therapy (5-7 L/min). The primary outcome of nasal high-flow therapy failure was a composite outcome defined as the need for higher respiratory support (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy.
RESULTS: A total of 212 neonates were enrolled. Nasal high-flow failure rate in the increased flow group was similar to the standard flow group (22 vs. 29%, relative risk = 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.15]). However, nasal flow rate escalation was significantly more common in the standard flow group (64 vs. 43%, p = 0.004). None of the infants in the increased flow group developed air leak syndromes.
CONCLUSION: Higher nasal flow rate (8-10 L/min) when compared with lower nasal flow rate of 5 to 7 L/min did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support (CPAP/mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy in moderately and late preterm neonates. However, initial flow rates of 5 L/min were not optimal for most preterm infants receiving primary nasal flow therapy.
KEY POINTS: · Use of high nasal flows (8-10 L/min) did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support in moderately and late preterm infants.. · Nasal flow rate of 5 L/min was not optimal for most preterms with respiratory distress from birth.. · Careful patient selection and optimized flow settings could enhance nasal flow success in neonates..
RESULTS: A total of 212 neonates were enrolled. Nasal high-flow failure rate in the increased flow group was similar to the standard flow group (22 vs. 29%, relative risk = 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.15]). However, nasal flow rate escalation was significantly more common in the standard flow group (64 vs. 43%, p = 0.004). None of the infants in the increased flow group developed air leak syndromes.
CONCLUSION: Higher nasal flow rate (8-10 L/min) when compared with lower nasal flow rate of 5 to 7 L/min did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support (CPAP/mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy in moderately and late preterm neonates. However, initial flow rates of 5 L/min were not optimal for most preterm infants receiving primary nasal flow therapy.
KEY POINTS: · Use of high nasal flows (8-10 L/min) did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support in moderately and late preterm infants.. · Nasal flow rate of 5 L/min was not optimal for most preterms with respiratory distress from birth.. · Careful patient selection and optimized flow settings could enhance nasal flow success in neonates..