Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2018
[Clinical effect of bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure in respiratory support for preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome].
Сравнительное 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.
Shu Xian-Xiao, Chen Chao, Tang Jun, Wang Hua
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical effect and safety of bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BNCPAP) versus conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in respiratory support for preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 130 preterm infants with NRDS. Among them, 69 underwent BNCPAP and 61 underwent nCPAP. The two groups were compared in terms of mortality rate, duration of respiratory support, use of pulmonary surfactant (PS), and treatment failure rate, and the incidence rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), as well as the changes in blood gas pH, partial pressure of oxygen, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide. The safety was evaluated for both groups.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the BNCPAP group and the nCPAP group in sex distribution, gestational age, birth weight, Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes after birth, delivery mode, and the severity of NRDS (P>0.05). No infants in the BNCPAP group died, and one infant in the nCPAP group died; there was no significant difference in the mortality rate between the two groups (P>0.05). There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of noninvasive ventilation, treatment failure rate, the incidence rates of BPD and ROP, and the percentage of infants with a need for use or reuse of PS (P>0.05). After 8-12 hours of ventilation, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the changes in blood gas pH and oxygenation index (P>0.05), while the BNCPAP group had a significantly greater reduction in partial pressure of carbon dioxide than the nCPAP group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence rates of pneumothorax, nasal septal injury, and nasal mucosal injury (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: BNCPAP and nCPAP have similar clinical effect and safety in respiratory support for preterm infants with NRDS.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 130 preterm infants with NRDS. Among them, 69 underwent BNCPAP and 61 underwent nCPAP. The two groups were compared in terms of mortality rate, duration of respiratory support, use of pulmonary surfactant (PS), and treatment failure rate, and the incidence rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), as well as the changes in blood gas pH, partial pressure of oxygen, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide. The safety was evaluated for both groups.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the BNCPAP group and the nCPAP group in sex distribution, gestational age, birth weight, Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes after birth, delivery mode, and the severity of NRDS (P>0.05). No infants in the BNCPAP group died, and one infant in the nCPAP group died; there was no significant difference in the mortality rate between the two groups (P>0.05). There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of noninvasive ventilation, treatment failure rate, the incidence rates of BPD and ROP, and the percentage of infants with a need for use or reuse of PS (P>0.05). After 8-12 hours of ventilation, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the changes in blood gas pH and oxygenation index (P>0.05), while the BNCPAP group had a significantly greater reduction in partial pressure of carbon dioxide than the nCPAP group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence rates of pneumothorax, nasal septal injury, and nasal mucosal injury (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: BNCPAP and nCPAP have similar clinical effect and safety in respiratory support for preterm infants with NRDS.