Early human development · 2020
N-BiPAP vs n-CPAP in term neonate with respiratory distress syndrome.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное 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.
Cimino Carla, Saporito Marco Andrea Nicola, Vitaliti Giovanna, Pavone Piero, Mauceri Laura, Gitto Eloisa, Corsello Giovanni, Lubrano Riccardo, Falsaperla Raffaele
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive respiratory ventilation has greatly improved the evolution of respiratory distress in neonates, especially for preterm infants, but few studies have investigated the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in term infants. It is useful for neonatologists and nurses to identify the optimal ventilation strategy in terms of effectiveness for this group of newborns. The aim of our study was to investigate what type of respiratory support between nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP) or nasal Biphasic Positive Airway Pressure (nBiPAP) is more effective in term neonates with RDS.
METHODS: Our study was a retrospective observational study of 78 full term neonates who were admitted to the NICU at S. Bambino Hospital from December 2015 to December 2016 for respiratory distress at birth. All patients underwent non-invasive ventilation by nCPAP or nBiPAP were included. Oxygen saturations and vital signs were monitored continuously. We evaluated blood gas analysis parameters before treatment and after 1 h of ventilation.
RESULTS: During the study period, there were 78 full term newborns admitted in our NICU for neonatal distress who were treated with nCPAP ore nBIPAP ventilation. In nBiPAP patients, we noticed a statistically significant reduction in PaCO2 levels and FiO2 requirement with respect to nCPAP patients, after 1 h of ventilation with a simultaneous significant increase of pH and PaO2 levels. There was no difference in the length of NIV and hospital stay. Among nCPAP patients, two were then intubated and one developed a pneumothorax.
CONCLUSION: The results of our study showed that an early BiPAP ventilation on RDS is the more efficient NIV because it improves CO2 removal and reduces FiO2 requirement in comparison to nCPAP. Future studies can clarify if early BiPAP ventilation on RDS is the more efficient of NIV.
METHODS: Our study was a retrospective observational study of 78 full term neonates who were admitted to the NICU at S. Bambino Hospital from December 2015 to December 2016 for respiratory distress at birth. All patients underwent non-invasive ventilation by nCPAP or nBiPAP were included. Oxygen saturations and vital signs were monitored continuously. We evaluated blood gas analysis parameters before treatment and after 1 h of ventilation.
RESULTS: During the study period, there were 78 full term newborns admitted in our NICU for neonatal distress who were treated with nCPAP ore nBIPAP ventilation. In nBiPAP patients, we noticed a statistically significant reduction in PaCO2 levels and FiO2 requirement with respect to nCPAP patients, after 1 h of ventilation with a simultaneous significant increase of pH and PaO2 levels. There was no difference in the length of NIV and hospital stay. Among nCPAP patients, two were then intubated and one developed a pneumothorax.
CONCLUSION: The results of our study showed that an early BiPAP ventilation on RDS is the more efficient NIV because it improves CO2 removal and reduces FiO2 requirement in comparison to nCPAP. Future studies can clarify if early BiPAP ventilation on RDS is the more efficient of NIV.