NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION VERSUS NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE FOR PRETERM INFANTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME
(2020). NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION VERSUS NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE FOR PRETERM INFANTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME. EKB Journal Management System, 23(3), 1121-1138. doi: 10.21608/azjp.2020.128350
. "NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION VERSUS NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE FOR PRETERM INFANTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME". EKB Journal Management System, 23, 3, 2020, 1121-1138. doi: 10.21608/azjp.2020.128350
(2020). 'NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION VERSUS NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE FOR PRETERM INFANTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME', EKB Journal Management System, 23(3), pp. 1121-1138. doi: 10.21608/azjp.2020.128350
NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION VERSUS NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE FOR PRETERM INFANTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME. EKB Journal Management System, 2020; 23(3): 1121-1138. doi: 10.21608/azjp.2020.128350

NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION VERSUS NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE FOR PRETERM INFANTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME

Al-Azhar Journal of Pediatrics
Article 8, Volume 23, Issue 3, June 2020, Page 1121-1138  XML PDF (211.1 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/azjp.2020.128350
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Abstract
Introduction: Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is the most common respiratory morbidity in preterm infants, despite surfactant therapy has become the standard of care in preterm infants with RDS, up to 40% of neonates with RDS may need intubation and mechanical ventilation.
The aim of the work: was to evaluate whether nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is more successful than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for management of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) decreasing the requirement for endotracheal ventilation or not, and to compare the related complications and outcomes.
Patients and methods: The present comparative study included Seventy one preterm neonates with RDS delivered and admitted to neonatal intensive care units of Al Hussein University Hospital and Ahmed Maher Teaching Hospital from October 2014 till November 2015. They were selected by simple random method, sixty patients were enrolled in the study & classified into 2 groups, NCPAP group (n=31) and NIPPV group (n=29). Detailed history-taking, thorough examination and laboratory data were obtained.
The results showed: Those 24 (82.8 %) patients showed NIPPV success with 5 (17.2 %) patients needed endotracheal ventilation versus 22 (71 %) patients showed NCPAP success with 9 (29 %) patients needed endotracheal ventilation. Also, 25 (86.2 %) patients survived and 4 (13.7 %) patients expired among the NIPPV group versus 24 (77.4 %) patients survived, and 7 (22.6 %) patients expired among the NCPAP group. NIPPV group showed less duration of O2 need and hospital stay, and lower initial PEEP and FiO2, but no significant differences as regard complications between the 2 groups.
In conclusion: NIPPV is more effective and safer than NCPAP in the initial treatment of RDS.
Statistics
Article View: 57
PDF Download: 182