Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 63 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 23 - 30 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003 İndeks Tarihi: 20-05-2022

Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants

Öz:
Background. The use of non-invasive ventilation methods in neonatal intensive care units has been increasingin recent years. Non-invasive ventilation techniques are lung preserving methods and they reduce the risk ofvolutrauma, barotrauma, and atelectotrauma. Methods. The effect of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC), continuous positive airwaypressure (CPAP), nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and nasal high-frequency oscillationventilation (NHFOV) were compared in preterm infants with respiratory distress.Results. Between December 2015 and February 2017, a total of 76 preterm infants (gestational age <32 weeks)with respiratory distress were enrolled in this study. Of the patients, 20 received HHHFNC, while 20 receivednasal CPAP (NCPAP), 19 received NIPPV, and 17 received NHFOV for respiratory support. The primaryoutcome was intubation requirement during non-invasive respiratory support. The secondary outcome includedduration of non-invasive ventilation, air leak syndrome, abdominal distension, intraventricular hemorrhage,necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), nasal injury, increased secretions, agitation, and mortality rate. The intubationratio was higher in the NCPAP (40%) and NHFOV (29.4%) groups when compared with the NIPPV (10.5%)and HHHFNC (11.8%) groups. More nasal injury had developed in the NIPPV (78.9%) and NHFOV (82.4%)groups when compared with the NCPAP (40%) and HHHFNC (35%) groups. Moreover, the viscous secretionthat blocked the cannulas was higher in NIPPV (78.9%) and NHFOV (76.5%) groups than NCPAP (25%) andHHHFNC (40%) groups. There were no significant differences in the duration of non-invasive ventilationmethods, abdominal distension, NEC, air leak syndrome or mortality in the 4 groups.Conclusions. The NIPPV and HHHFNC methods can be useful as a primary mode of respiratory support forrespiratory distress. However, doctors need to be careful with regard to the complications that may develop.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
0
0
0
  • 1. Lau HCQ, Tung JSZ, Wong TTC, Tan PL, Tagore S. Timing of antenatal steroids exposure and its effects on neonates. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296: 1091- 1096.
  • 2. Warren JB, Anderson JM. Newborn respiratory disorders. Pediatr Rev 2010; 31: 487-495.
  • 3. Shim GH. Update of minimally invasive surfactant therapy. Korean J Pediatr 2017; 60: 273-281.
  • 4. Jobe AH, Bancalari E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163: 1723-1729.
  • 5. Schmölzer GM, Kumar M, Pichler G, Aziz K, O’Reilly M, Cheung PY. Non-invasive versus invasive respiratory support in preterm infants at birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2013; 347: f5980.
  • 6. Wright CJ, Kirpalani H. When should we start continuous positive airway pressure in the delivery room and how high should we go? Acta Paediatr 2016; 105: 868-870.
  • 7. Trembath A, Laughon MM. Predictors of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Clin Perinatol 2012; 39: 585-601.
  • 8. Bhandari V. The potential of non-invasive ventilation to decrease BPD. Semin Perinatol 2013; 37: 108-114.
  • 9. Wilkinson D, Andersen C, O’Donnell CP, De Paoli AG, Manley BJ. High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2: CD006405.
  • 10. Shin J, Park K, Lee EH, Choi BM. Humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as an initial respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress: a randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial. J Korean Med Sci 2017; 32: 650-655.
  • 11. Owen LS, Manley BJ. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants: equipment, evidence, and synchronization. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 21: 146-153.
  • 12. Mukerji A, Finelli M, Belik J. Nasal high-frequency oscillation for lung carbon dioxide clearance in the newborn. Neonatology 2013; 103: 161-165.
  • 13. Lemyre B, Laughon M, Bose C, Davis PG. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 12: CD005384.
  • 14. Shi Y, Tang S, Zhao J, Shen J. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of NIPPV versus nCPAP in preterm and term infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatr Pulmonol 2014; 49: 673- 678.
  • 15. Kugelman A, Feferkorn I, Riskin A, Chistyakov I, Kaufman B, Bader D. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Pediatr 2007; 150: 521-526.
  • 16. Silveira CST, Leonardi KM, Melo APCF, Zaia JE, Brunherotti MA.Response of preterm infants to 2 noninvasive ventilatory support systems: nasal CPAP and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Respir Care 2015; 60: 1772-1776.
  • 17. Li W, Long C, Zhangxue H, et al. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and up-date. Pediatr Pulmonol 2015; 50: 402-409.
  • 18. Waitz M, Mense L, Kirpalani H, Lemyre B. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for preterm neonates: synchronized or not? Clin Perinatol 2016; 43: 799-816.
  • 19. Dumpa V, Katz K, Northrup V, Bhandari V. SNIPPV vs NIPPV: does synchronization matter? J Perinatol 2012; 32: 438-442.
  • 20. Hoehn T, Krause MF. Effective elimination of carbon dioxide by nasopharyngeal high-frequency ventilation. Respir Med 2000; 94: 1132-1134.
  • 21. Aktas S, Unal S, Aksu M, et al. Nasal HFOV with binasal cannula appears effective and feasible in ELBW newborns. J Trop Pediatr 2016; 62: 165-168.
  • 22. Colaizy TT, Younis UMM, Bell EF, Klein JM. Nasal high-frequency ventilation for premature infants. Acta Paediatr 2008; 97: 1518-1522.
  • 23. Czernik C, Schmalisch G, Bührer C, Proquitte H. Weaning of neonates from mechanical ventilation by use of nasopharyngeal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation: a preliminary study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 374-378.
  • 24. Fischer HS, Bohlin K, Bührer C, et al. Nasal highfrequency oscillation ventilation in neonates: a survey in five European countries. Eur J Pediatr 2015; 174: 465-471.
  • 25. Ullrich TL, Czernik C, Buhrer C, Schmalisch G, Fischer HS. Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation impairs heated humidification: a neonatal bench study. Pediatr Pulmonol 2017; 52: 1455-1460.
  • 26. Permall DL, Pasha AB, Chen XQ. Current insights in non-invasive ventilation for the treatment of neonatal respiratory disease. Ital J Pediatr 2019; 45: 105.
  • 27. Roberts CT, Owen LS, Manley BJ, et al; HIPSTER Trial Investigators Nasal high-flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1142-1151.
  • 28. Kadivar M, Mosayebi Z, Razi N, Nariman S, Sangsari R. High flow nasal Cannulae versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome managed with INSURE method: a randomized clinical trial. Iran J Med Sci 2016; 41: 494-500.
  • 29. Yoder BA, Stoddard RA, Li M, King J, Dirnberger DR, Abbasi S. Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for respiratory support in neonates. Pediatrics 2013; 131: e1482-e1490.
  • 30. Collins CL, Holberton JR, Barfield C, Davis PG. A randomized controlled trial to compare heated humidified high-flow nasal cannulae with nasal continuous positive airway pressure postextubation in premature infants. J Pediatr 2013; 162: 949-954.
  • 31. Arora B, Mahajan P, Zidan MA, Sethuraman U. Nasopharyngeal airway pressures in bronchiolitis patients treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. Pediatr Emerg Care 2012; 28: 1179- 1184.
  • 32. Wilkinson DJ, Andersen CC, Smith K, Holberton J. Pharyngeal pressure with high-flow nasal cannulae in premature infants. J Perinatol 2008; 28: 42-47.
  • 33. Sreenan C, Lemke RP, Hudson-Mason A, Osiovich H. High-flow nasal cannulae in the management of apnea of prematurity: a comparison with conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Pediatrics 2001; 107: 1081-1083.
  • 34. Jatana KR, Oplatek A, Stein M, Phillips G, Kang DR, Elmaraghy CA. Effects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure and cannula use in the neonatal intensive care unit setting. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 136: 287-291
APA Öktem A, yigit s, CELIK H, Yurdakok M (2021). Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. , 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
Chicago Öktem Ahmet,yigit sule,CELIK HASAN TOLGA,Yurdakok Murat Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. (2021): 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
MLA Öktem Ahmet,yigit sule,CELIK HASAN TOLGA,Yurdakok Murat Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. , 2021, ss.23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
AMA Öktem A,yigit s,CELIK H,Yurdakok M Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. . 2021; 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
Vancouver Öktem A,yigit s,CELIK H,Yurdakok M Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. . 2021; 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
IEEE Öktem A,yigit s,CELIK H,Yurdakok M "Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants." , ss.23 - 30, 2021. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
ISNAD Öktem, Ahmet vd. "Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants". (2021), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
APA Öktem A, yigit s, CELIK H, Yurdakok M (2021). Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics, 63(1), 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
Chicago Öktem Ahmet,yigit sule,CELIK HASAN TOLGA,Yurdakok Murat Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 63, no.1 (2021): 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
MLA Öktem Ahmet,yigit sule,CELIK HASAN TOLGA,Yurdakok Murat Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics, vol.63, no.1, 2021, ss.23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
AMA Öktem A,yigit s,CELIK H,Yurdakok M Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics. 2021; 63(1): 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
Vancouver Öktem A,yigit s,CELIK H,Yurdakok M Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics. 2021; 63(1): 23 - 30. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
IEEE Öktem A,yigit s,CELIK H,Yurdakok M "Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants." Turkish Journal of Pediatrics, 63, ss.23 - 30, 2021. 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003
ISNAD Öktem, Ahmet vd. "Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratorysupport techniques as primary respiratory support inpreterm infants". Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 63/1 (2021), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003