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
SHU Xian-Xiao, CHEN Chao, TANG Jun, WANG Hua
Department of Neonatology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
Abstract：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.
SHU Xian-Xiao,CHEN Chao,TANG Jun et al. 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[J]. CJCP, 2018, 20(6): 433-437.
Gregory GA, Kitterman JA, Phibbs RH, et al. Treatment of the idiopathic respiratory distress syndrome with continuous positive airway pressure[J]. N Engl J Med, 1971, 284(24):1333-1340.
[2]
Sankaran K, Adegbi M. 新生儿无创辅助呼吸支持介绍[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2012, 14(9):643-652.
[3]
Lee KS, Dunn MS, Fenwick M, et al. A comparison of underwater bubble continuous positive airway pressure with ventilator-derived continuous positive airway pressure in premature neonates ready for extubation[J]. Neonatology, 1998, 73(2):69-75.
Afjeh SA, Sabzehei MK, Khoshnood SM, et al. Evaluation of initial respiratory support strategies in VLBW neonates with RDS[J]. Arch Iran Med, 2017, 20(3):158-164.
Jobe AH, Bancalari E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2001, 163(7):1723-1729.
[9]
Fierson WM, American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Ophthalmology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, et al. Screening examination of premature infants for retinopathy of prematurity[J]. Pediatrics, 2013, 131(1):189-195.
Carvalho CG, Silveira RC, Procianoy RS. Ventilator-induced lung injury in preterm infants[J]. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva, 2013, 25(4):319-326.
[12]
Garg S, Sinha S. Non-invasive ventilation in premature infants:based on evidence or habit[J]. J Clin Neonatol, 2013, 2(4):155-159.
[13]
Narendran V, Donovan EF, Hoath SB, et al. Early bubble CPAP and outcomes in ELBW preterm infants[J]. J Perinatol, 2003, 23(3):195-199.
[14]
McAdams RM, Hedstrom AB, DiBlasi RM, et al. Implementation of bubble CPAP in a rural Ugandan neonatal ICU[J]. Respir Care, 2015, 60(3):437-445.
[15]
Rezzonico R, Caccamo LM, Manfredini V, et al. Impact of the systematic introduction of low-cost bubble nasal CPAP in a NICU of a developing country:a prospective pre-and post-intervention study[J]. BMC Pediatr, 2015, 15:26.
[16]
Martin S, Duke T, Davis P. Efficacy and safety of bubble CPAP in neonatal care in low and middle income countries:a systematic review[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2014, 99(6):F495-F504.
[17]
Yagui AC, Vale LA, Haddad LB, et al. Bubble CPAP versus CPAP with variable flow in newborns with respiratory distress:a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Pediatr (Rio J), 2011, 87(6):499-504.
[18]
Kawaza K, Machen HE, Brown J, et al. Efficacy of a low-cost bubble CPAP system in treatment of respiratory distress in a neonatal ward in Malawi[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(1):e86327.
[19]
Thomas CW, Meinzen-Derr J, Hoath SB, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants ventilated with continuous positive airway pressure vs. mechanical ventilation[J]. Indian J Pediatr, 2012, 79(2):218-223.
