Abstract OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NSIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (NCPAP) for the treatment of apnea in preterm infants. METHODS: Eighty preterm infants with apnea from August 2010 to January 2011 were randomly administered with NSIPPV and NCPAP (n=40 each).The blood gas results before and 2 hrs after ventilation, time of using ventilator, therapeutic efficacy and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the blood gas results between the two groups before ventilation. The blood gas results (pH, PO2, PCO2) in the NSIPPV group were better than those in the NCPAP group 2 hrs after ventilation. The time of using ventilator in the NSIPPV group was shorter than that in the NCPAP group (50±9 h vs 91±11 h; P0.05). The proportion of ventilator weaning within 3 days in the NSIPPV group (23/40) was higher than that in the NCPAP group (14/40) (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the NSIPPV group was not different from that in the NCPAP group (22% vs 25%). CONCLUSIONS: NSIPPV appears to be superior to NCPAP for the treatment of apnea in preterm infants.
LIN Xin-Zhu,ZHENG Zhi,LIN Ya-Yin et al. Nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation for the treatment of apnea in preterm infants[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2011, 13(10): 783-786.
LIN Xin-Zhu,ZHENG Zhi,LIN Ya-Yin et al. Nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation for the treatment of apnea in preterm infants[J]. CJCP, 2011, 13(10): 783-786.
［7］Santin R, Brodsky N, Bhandari V. A prospective observational pilot study of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation(SNIPPV) as primary mode of ventilation in infants >or=28 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome (ROS)［J］. J Perinatol, 2004, 24(8): 487-493.
［8］Davis PG, Morley CJ, Owen LS. Non-invasive respiratory support of preterm neonates with respiratory distress: continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation［J］.Semin Fetal Neonata Med, 2009, 14(1): 14-20.
［9］Lampland AL, Meyers PA, Worwa CT, Swanson EC, Mammel MC. Gas exchange and lung inflammation using nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in piglets with saline-lavage-induced lung injury: an observational study［J］.Crit Care Med, 2008, 36(1): 183-187.
［10］Lin CH, Wang ST, Lin YJ, Yeh TF. Efficacy of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in treating apnea of prematurity［J］.Pediatr Pulmonol, 1998, 26(5): 349-353.
3.0.CO;2-7 target="_blank">
［11］Kiciman NM, Andréasson B, Bernstein G, Mannino FL, Rich W, Henderson C, et al. Thoracoabdominal motion in newborns during vetilation delivered by endotracheal tube or nasal prongs［J］. Pediatr Pulmonol, 1998, 25(3): 175-181.
3.0.CO;2-L target="_blank">
［12］Moretti C, Gizzi C, Papoff P, Lampariello S, Capoferri M, Calcagnini G, et al. Comparing the effects of nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation（nSIPPV）and nasal continuous positive airway pressure（nCPAP）after extubation in very low birth weight infants［J］.Early Hum Dev, 1999, 56(2-3): 167-177.
［13］Migliori C, Motta M, Angeli A, Chirico G. Nasal bilevel vs. continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants［J］. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2005, 40(5): 426-430.
