+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised control trial



Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised control trial



Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 95(2): F85



To evaluate the clinical course, respiratory outcomes and markers of inflammation in preterm infants with moderate respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) assigned from birth to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or bi-level NCPAP. A total of 40 infants with a gestational age (GA) of 28-34 weeks (<35 weeks' GA), affected by moderate RDS, were considered eligible and were randomised to NCPAP (group A; n=20, CPAP level=6 cm H(2)O) or to bi-level NCPAP (group B; n=20, lower CPAP level=4.5 cm H(2)O, higher CPAP level=8 cm H(2)O), provided with variable flow devices. Inflammatory response was the primary outcome; serum cytokines were measured on days 1 and 7 of life. Length of ventilation, oxygen dependency, need for intubation and occurrence of air leaks were considered as secondary outcomes. Infants showed similar characteristics at birth (group A vs group B: GA 30.3+/-2 vs 30.2+/-2 weeks, birth weight 1429+/-545 vs 1411+/-560 g) and showed similar serum cytokine levels at all times. Group A underwent longer respiratory support (6.2+/-2 days vs 3.8+/-1 days, p=0.025), longer O(2) dependency (13.8+/-8 days vs 6.5+/-4 days, p=0.027) and was discharged later (GA at discharge 36.7+/-2.5 weeks vs 35.6+/-1.2 weeks, p=0.02). All infants survived. No bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or neurological disorders occurred. Bi-level NCPAP was associated with better respiratory outcomes versus NCPAP, and allowed earlier discharge, inducing the same changes in the cytokine levels. It was found to be well tolerated and safe in the study population.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 054548550

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 19948523

DOI: 10.1136/adc.2009.169219


Related references

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised control trial. Yearbook of Pediatrics 2012: 422-423, 2012

Randomized controlled trial of two methods of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (N-CPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: underwater bubbly CPAP vs. Medijet system device. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 54(6): 632-640, 2012

Nasal bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preterm infants ≤32 weeks: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 52(5): 493-498, 2016

Comparison of non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as post-extubation respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 29(10): 1546-1551, 2016

Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure And High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation For The Treatment Of Respiratory Distress Syndrome In Preterm Babies: A Randomized Control Trial. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 6(2): 244-245, 2005

Production of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) using a nasal mask in the respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Monatsschrift für Kinderheilkunde 123(5): 461-463, 1975

Nasal Mask Versus Nasal Prongs for Delivering Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian Pediatrics 52(12): 1035-1040, 2015

Therapy with nasal CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). I: Long-term acceptance of nasal CPAP. Laryngo- Rhino- Otologie 76(9): 550-553, 1997

Clinical effect of bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure in respiratory support for preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 20(6): 433-437, 2018

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and up-date. Pediatric Pulmonology 50(4): 402-409, 2015

The stable microbubble test for determining continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) success in very preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP from birth. Neonatology 104(3): 188-193, 2013

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Primary Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neonatology 113(3): 235-241, 2018

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. Journal of Korean Medical Science 32(4): 650-655, 2017

Extubation success in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome treated with bi-level nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing 27(4): 328, 2013

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Infant Flow Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Versus Nasopharyngeal CPAP in the Extubation of Babies 1250 grams. Pediatric Research 45(4, Part 2 of 2): 318a-318a, 1999