Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is one of the main causes of mortality in premature neonates. Treatment of these neonates with invasive mechanical ventilation has side effects such as chronic pulmonary diseases. Noninvasive ventilation, such as nasal continuous positive airway pressu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2019
Main Authors: Malakian, Arash, Bashirnezhadkhabaz, Shiva, Mohammad-Reza Aramesh, Dehdashtian, Masoud
Format: Web Resource
Language:English
Subjects:
Premature babies
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is one of the main causes of mortality in premature neonates. Treatment of these neonates with invasive mechanical ventilation has side effects such as chronic pulmonary diseases. Noninvasive ventilation, such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal high-frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV), has shown to reduce the burden of chronic lung disease. NHFOV is a promising new mode of noninvasive ventilation and may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and reduce possible complications. In this study, we hypothesized that early NHFOV would reduce the need for invasive respiratory support in comparison to NCPAP in preterm neonates with RDS. Methods: One hundred twenty-four neonates between 28 to 34 weeks of gestational age (GA) with RDS hospitalized at Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz in 2016 were included in this randomized controlled study. The primary outcomes were the failure of NHFOV and NCPAP within 72 h after birth. The secondary outcomes were the duration of invasive ventilation and possible side effects. Results: Out of 124 neonates in this study, 63 and 61 neonates were studied in the NHFOV and NCPAP groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between NHFOV (6.5%) and NCPAP (14.1%) groups in terms of rates of primary consequences (p = .13). However, the duration of noninvasive ventilation in NHFOV was significantly less than that of NCPAP group (p = .01). Conclusion: In our study group, preterm infants from 28 to 34 weeks of GA, NHFOV did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h after birth compared to NCPAP; however, the duration of noninvasive ventilation in the NHFOV group was significantly shorter. Trial registration:Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: IR.AJUMS.REC.1395.162.