Indian pediatrics · 2016
Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure as Primary Mode of Respiratory Support for Respiratory Distress in Preterm Infants.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Hegde Deeparaj, Mondkar Jayashree, Panchal Harshad, Manerkar Swati, Jasani Bonny, Kabra Nandkishor
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of preterm infants with respiratory distress initiated on either Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula or Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure as a primary mode of respiratory support.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary care level III neonatal intensive care unit.
PARTICIPANTS: 88 preterm infants between 28 to 34 weeks of gestation with mild to moderate respiratory distress within 6 hours of birth.
INTERVENTION: Eligible infants were treated either with Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (n=46) or Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (n=42).
PRIMARY OUTCOME: Need for mechanical ventilation within 72 hrs of initiating support.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups. There was no difference in the requirement of mechanical ventilation between Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (19.5%) and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (26.2%) groups [RD-0.74 (95% CI 0.34-1.62; P =0.46)]. Moderate or severe nasal trauma occurred less frequently with Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (10.9%) in comparison to Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (40.5%) (P= 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula was comparable to Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure as a primary respiratory support for preterm infants with respiratory distress, with lesser incidence of nasal trauma.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary care level III neonatal intensive care unit.
PARTICIPANTS: 88 preterm infants between 28 to 34 weeks of gestation with mild to moderate respiratory distress within 6 hours of birth.
INTERVENTION: Eligible infants were treated either with Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (n=46) or Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (n=42).
PRIMARY OUTCOME: Need for mechanical ventilation within 72 hrs of initiating support.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups. There was no difference in the requirement of mechanical ventilation between Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (19.5%) and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (26.2%) groups [RD-0.74 (95% CI 0.34-1.62; P =0.46)]. Moderate or severe nasal trauma occurred less frequently with Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (10.9%) in comparison to Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (40.5%) (P= 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula was comparable to Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure as a primary respiratory support for preterm infants with respiratory distress, with lesser incidence of nasal trauma.