|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
|
|
Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubationDavis PG, Lemyre B, De Paoli AG SummaryNasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubationThere is some evidence that nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) increases the effectiveness of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm babies who no longer need an endotracheal tube (tube in the wind pipe). Preterm babies with breathing problems often require help from a machine (ventilator) that provides regular breaths through a tube in the windpipe. The process of extubation or removal of this tube does not always go smoothly and the tube may need to go back if the baby cannot manage by him/herself. NCPAP and NIPPV are ways of supporting babies breathing in a less invasive way - the tubes are shorter and go only to the back of the nose and, therefore, cause less damage. NCPAP and NIPPV may be used after extubation to reduce the number of babies that need to have the endotracheal tube reinstituted. NCPAP provides steady pressure to the back of the nose which is transmitted to the lungs, helping the baby breath more comfortably. NIPPV provides the same support, but also adds some breaths from the ventilator. The three studies that have compared NCPAP and NIPPV each show that NIPPV reduces the need for the endotracheal tube to be reinstituted. Further studies are needed to make sure NIPPV is safe.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
July 23. 2001 AbstractBackgroundPrevious randomised trials and meta-analyses have shown nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) to be a useful method of respiratory support after extubation. However, infants managed in this way sometimes "fail" and require endotracheal reintubation with its attendant risks and expense. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a method of augmenting NCPAP by delivering ventilator breaths via nasal prongs. Older children and adults with chronic respiratory failure have been shown to benefit from NIPPV and the technique has been applied to neonates. However, serious side effects including gastric perforation have been reported and clinicians remain uncertain about the role of NIPPV in the management of neonates. It has recently become possible to synchronise delivery of NIPPV with the infant's own breathing efforts, which may make this modality more useful in this patient group. ObjectivesTo determine whether the use of NIPPV when compared to NCPAP decreases the rate of extubation failure without adverse effects in the preterm infant extubated following a period of intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Search strategyMEDLINE was searched using the MeSH terms: Infant, Newborn (exp) and Positive-pressure respiration (exp) up to December 18, 2007. Other sources included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2007), CINAHL using search terms: Infant, newborn and intermittent positive pressure ventilation, expert informants, previous reviews including cross-references and conference and symposia proceedings were used. Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing the use of NIPPV with NCPAP in preterm infants being extubated were selected for this review. Data collection and analysisData regarding clinical outcomes including extubation failure, endotracheal reintubation, rates of apnea, gastrointestinal perforation, feeding intolerance, chronic lung disease and duration of hospital stay were extracted independently by the three review authors. The trials were analysed using relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. Main resultsThree trials comparing extubation of infants to NIPPV or to NCPAP were identified. All trials used the synchronised form of NIPPV. Each showed a statistically significant benefit for infants extubated to NIPPV in terms of prevention of extubation failure criteria. The meta-analysis demonstrates a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the risk of meeting extubation failure criteria [typical RR 0.21 (95% CI 0.10, 0.45), typical RD -0.32 (95% CI -0.45, -0.20), NNT 3 (95% CI 2, 5)]. There were no reports of gastrointestinal perforation in any of the trials. Differences in rates of chronic lung disease approached but did not achieve statistical significance favouring NIPPV [typical RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.49, 1.07), typical RD -0.15 (95% CI -0.33, 0.03)]. Authors' conclusionsImplications for practice: NIPPV is a useful method of augmenting the beneficial effects of NCPAP in preterm infants. Its use reduces the incidence of symptoms of extubation failure more effectively than NCPAP. Within the limits of the small numbers of infants randomised to NIPPV there is a reassuring absence of the gastrointestinal side effects that were reported in previous case series. |