Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2015
A comparison of bilevel and ventilator-delivered non-invasive respiratory support.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Millar David, Lemyre Brigitte, Kirpalani Haresh, Chiu Aaron, Yoder Bradley A, Roberts Robin S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in infants who received nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) delivered by a conventional mechanical ventilator (CMV) or a bilevel device.
DESIGN: A preplanned non-randomised comparison of infants randomised to the NIPPV arm of the NIPPV trial.
SETTING: Thirty-six tertiary neonatal units in three continents.
PATIENTS: Infants <1000 g and <30 weeks gestational age at birth.
INTERVENTIONS: Infants received treatment with CMV NIPPV or bilevel NIPPV, as a primary mode of respiratory support or following first extubation.
RESULTS: 241 received mainly bilevel NIPPV and 215 mainly CMV NIPPV. No difference was found in death or BPD at 36 weeks corrected age (adjusted OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.35)). More deaths occurred in infants receiving bilevel NIPPV (9.4%) than in CMV NIPPV (2.3%) (adjusted OR 5.01: 95% CI 1.74 to 14.4). There was a corresponding but not statistically significant decrease in BPD in the bilevel NIPPV group (30% vs 37%) (adjusted OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.02)). No difference was observed in extubation failure or age at last extubation. A post hoc test of interaction between device type and synchronisation was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or BPD between infants who received mostly bilevel NIPPV compared with mostly CMV NIPPV. Differences in component outcomes of morbidity and BPD may be due to the competing nature of these outcomes or differences in baseline characteristics of infants.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00433212.
DESIGN: A preplanned non-randomised comparison of infants randomised to the NIPPV arm of the NIPPV trial.
SETTING: Thirty-six tertiary neonatal units in three continents.
PATIENTS: Infants <1000 g and <30 weeks gestational age at birth.
INTERVENTIONS: Infants received treatment with CMV NIPPV or bilevel NIPPV, as a primary mode of respiratory support or following first extubation.
RESULTS: 241 received mainly bilevel NIPPV and 215 mainly CMV NIPPV. No difference was found in death or BPD at 36 weeks corrected age (adjusted OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.35)). More deaths occurred in infants receiving bilevel NIPPV (9.4%) than in CMV NIPPV (2.3%) (adjusted OR 5.01: 95% CI 1.74 to 14.4). There was a corresponding but not statistically significant decrease in BPD in the bilevel NIPPV group (30% vs 37%) (adjusted OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.02)). No difference was observed in extubation failure or age at last extubation. A post hoc test of interaction between device type and synchronisation was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or BPD between infants who received mostly bilevel NIPPV compared with mostly CMV NIPPV. Differences in component outcomes of morbidity and BPD may be due to the competing nature of these outcomes or differences in baseline characteristics of infants.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00433212.