European journal of pediatrics · 2026
Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation as primary respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: current evidence and clinical implications.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hafeez Sumayya, Vardhelli Venkateshwarlu, Rd Rachana, Saha Bijan, Murki Srinivas, Bhandari Vineet, Dumpa Vikramaditya
Аннотация
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the standard initial therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and associated with failure rates of up to 50% in extremely preterm infants. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has demonstrated consistent benefits over CPAP in reducing respiratory failure and intubation. Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) has also shown reduced treatment failure compared with CPAP, particularly in extremely preterm infants. However, direct head-to-head comparisons between nHFOV and NIPPV as primary support are lacking, and available evidence from indirect comparisons has low certainty. Both NIPPV and nHFOV represent viable advanced non-invasive ventilation options beyond CPAP, each with distinct physiological mechanisms and evidence profiles. The current evidence base supports the use of both modalities in clinical practice, but robust head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing nHFOV and NIPPV as primary respiratory support are urgently needed to guide optimal clinical decision-making. What is Known: • CPAP is the standard first-line support for RDS but fails in up to 50% of extremely preterm infants. • Both NIPPV and nHFOV reduce treatment failure and intubation compared with CPAP. What is New: • Neither NIPPV nor nHFOV has proven superior to the other, as direct comparisons are few and of low certainty. Head-to-head RCTs of nHFOV vs. NIPPV as primary support in extremely preterm infants are urgently needed. • Modality choice should also be guided by local expertise, available equipment, and gestational age.