Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with moderate-severe respiratory distress syndrome: A preliminary report

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (8) ◽  
pp. 1038-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xing-Wang Zhu ◽  
Jin-Ning Zhao ◽  
Shi-Fang Tang ◽  
Jun Yan ◽  
Yuan Shi
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Preliminary Report ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation ◽  
Severe Respiratory Distress ◽  
Severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
High Frequency Oscillatory

Frühgeborene: Nasale Hochfrequenz-Oszillationsbeatmung vs. nasaler CPAP

2021 ◽  
Vol 225 (05) ◽  
pp. 389-390
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation ◽  
Oscillatory Ventilation ◽  
High Frequency Oscillatory

Viele Frühgeborene mit einem Atemnotsyndrom (engl. Respiratory Distress Syndrome, RDS) erhalten zunächst eine nicht invasive Atemunterstützung. Ein chinesisches Forscherteam untersuchte nun, welche Methode besser vor einem invasiven mechanischen Beatmungsbedarf schützte: Der nasale CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) oder die nasale HFOV (High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation).

scholarly journals Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as an initial therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm and near-term infants

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramin Iranpour ◽  
Amir-Mohammad Armanian ◽  
Ahmad-Reza Abedi ◽  
Ziba Farajzadegan
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Term Infants ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Near Term ◽  
High Frequency Oscillatory

BackgroundCurrently, various forms of non-invasive respiratory support have been used in the management of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm neonates. However, nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) has not yet been applied commonly as an initial treatment.ObjectivesThis study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of nHFOV compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm and near-term infants with RDS.MethodsIn a randomised clinical trial, a total of 68 neonates (gestational age (GA) between 30 and 36 weeks and 6 days) with a clinical diagnosis of RDS were randomly assigned to either the NCPAP (n=34) or the nHFOV (n=34) group. The primary outcome was the duration of non-invasive respiratory support (duration of using NCPAP or nHFOV).ResultThe median (IQR) duration of non-invasive respiratory support, was significantly shorter in the nHFOV group than that in the NCPAP group (20 (15–25.3) versus 26.5 (15–37.4) hours, respectively; p=0.02). The need for a ventilator occurred in 4 out of 34 (11.8%) neonates in the NCPAP group and in none of the neonates in the nHFOV group (p=0.03). In addition, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) occurred in nine cases (6.9%) in the NCPAP group and two cases (3.3%) in the nHFOV group, which showed a significant difference (p=0.04). The incidence of pneumothorax, chronic lung disease, pulmonary haemorrhage and necrotising enterocolitis was similar between the two groups.ConclusionThis study showed that nHFOV significantly reduced the duration of non-invasive respiratory support and decreased the need for intubation compared with NCPAP in infants with RDS. Furthermore, nHFOV seems to reduce the incidence of IVH without increasing other complications.Trial registration numberIRCT2017062734782N1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document