[Comparison of clinical efficacy of heated humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in very low birth weight infants].

OBJECTIVE

To compare the differences of clinical efficacy between heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants.

METHODS

A total of 66 VLBW infants who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit were diagnosed with RDS, and they were randomly assigned to HHHFNC group and NCPAP group after receiving treatment with porcine pulmonary surfactant and conventional treatment. The changes in clinical symptoms and the incidence of complications were observed in the two groups.

RESULTS

The HHHFN group had significantly earlier first milk feeding and full enteral feeding, significantly shorter oxygen exposure time and invasive ventilation time, and significantly lower incidences of second intubation within 7 days, nasal injury, air leak, and abdominal distention, as compared with the NCPAP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with NCPAP, HHHFNC causes slighter injury and has better tolerability, and it can be considered as the first choice of noninvasive ventilation in the treatment of RDS in VLBW infants.