Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Loading...
Date
2013-04
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of Nasal
intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and Nasal
continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in neonates.
Methods: Standard search strategy for the Cochrane Neonatal
Review Group was performed. The participants were both
preterm and term infants suffering from neonatal respiratory
distress syndrome or experiencing apnea of prematurity.
Results: 14 eligible andomized controlled trials involving 1052
newborn infants were included. The study quality and evidence
validity was defined as moderate. As compared with nCPAP,
NIPPV significantly reduced the incidence of endotracheal
ventilation (OR=0.44, 95%CI:0.31–0.63), increased the
successful rate of extubation (OR=0.15, 95%CI:0.08–0.31), and
had a better outcome indicated by decreased death and/or
bronchopulmonary dysplasia (OR=0.57, 95%CI:0.37–0.88).
Moreover, NIPPV decreased the number of apneic episodes of
prematurity (WMD=-0.48, 95%CI:-0.58–0.37), and marginally
decreased the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia
(OR=0.63, 95%CI:0.39–1.00). No side effects specifically
associated with NIPPV were reported.
Conclusions: NIPPV could be used to reduce endotracheal
ventilation, increase successful extubation, decrease the rate of
apnea of prematurity, and have better outcome indicated by fewer
death and/or bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm and term
newborn infants.
Description
Keywords
Management, Mechanical ventilation, Neonate, Respiratory distress syndrome, Outcome
Citation
Tang Shifang, Zhao Jinning, Shen Jie, Hu Zhangxue, Shi Yuan. Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Indian Pediatrics. 2013 April; 50(4): 371-376.