Effectiveness and safety of nasal mask versus binasal prongs for providing continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants-A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (7) ◽  
pp. 987-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonny Jasani ◽  
Abu Ismail ◽  
Shripada Rao ◽  
Sanjay Patole
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nasal Mask

scholarly journals Pressure versus Sudden Wean from Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neonatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Lemieux-Bourque ◽  
Bruno Piedboeuf ◽  
Patricia S. Fontela ◽  
Kevin Bornais ◽  
Marc Beltempo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Mask versus Prongs for Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neonatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. King ◽  
Bheru B. Gandhi ◽  
Andrea Jackson ◽  
Lakshmi Katakam ◽  
Mohan Pammi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Apnoea–hypopnoea indices determined via continuous positive airway pressure (AHI-CPAPflow) versus those determined by polysomnography (AHI-PSGgold): a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e044499
Author(s):  
Fanny Bertelli ◽  
Carey Meredith Suehs ◽  
Jean Pierre Mallet ◽  
Marie Caroline Rotty ◽  
Jean Louis Pepin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Sleep Disordered Breathing ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sleep Apnoea ◽  
Obstructive Sleep ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Disordered Breathing

Introduction To date, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) remains the cornerstone of obstructive sleep apnoea treatment. CPAP data describing residual sleep-disordered breathing events (ie, the CPAP-measured apnoea–hypopnoea indices (AHI-CPAPflow)) is difficult to interpret because it is an entirely different metric than the polysomnography (PSG) measured AHI gold standard (AHI-PSGgold). Moreover, manufacturer definitions for apnoea and hypopnoea are not only different from those recommended for PSG scoring, but also different between manufacturers. In the context of CPAP initiation and widespread telemedicine at home to facilitate sleep apnoea care, there is a need for concrete evidence that AHI-CPAPflow can be used as a surrogate for AHI-PSGgold. Methods and analysis No published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) has compared the accuracy of AHI-CPAPflow against AHI-PSGgold and the primary objective of this study is therefore to do so using published data. The secondary objectives are to similarly evaluate other sleep disordered breathing indices and to perform subgroup analyses focusing on the inclusion/exclusion of central apnoea patients, body mass index levels, CPAP device brands, pressure titration modes, use of a predetermined and fixed pressure level or not, and the impact of a 4% PSG desaturation criteria versus 3% PSG on accuracy. The Preferred Reporting Items for SRMA protocols statement guided study design. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies of adult patients (≥18 years old) treated by a CPAP device will be included. The CPAP intervention and PSG comparator must be performed synchronously. PSGs must be scored manually and follow the American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidelines (2007 AASM criteria or more recent). To assess the risk of bias in each study, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool will be used. Ethics and dissemination This protocol received ethics committee approval on 16 July 2020 (IRB_MTP_2020_07_2020000404) and results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO/Trial registration numbers CRD42020159914/NCT04526366; Pre-results

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Apnea of Prematurity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bayane Sabsabi ◽  
Ava Harrison ◽  
Laura Banfield ◽  
Amit Mukerji
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Apnea Of Prematurity

Objective The study aimed to systematically review and analyze the impact of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on apnea of prematurity (AOP) in preterm neonates. Study Design In this systematic review and meta-analysis, experimental studies enrolling preterm infants comparing NIPPV (synchronized, nonsynchronized, and bi-level) and CPAP (all types) were searched in multiple databases and screened for the assessment of AOP. Primary outcome was AOP frequency per hour (as defined by authors of included studies). Results Out of 4,980 articles identified, 18 studies were included with eight studies contributing to the primary outcome. All studies had a high risk of bias, with significant heterogeneity in definition and measurement of AOP. There was no difference in AOPs per hour between NIPPV versus CPAP (weighted mean difference = −0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.76 to 0.37; eight studies, 456 patients). However, in a post hoc analysis evaluating the presence of any AOP (over varying time periods), the pooled odds ratio (OR) was lower with NIPPV (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.32–0.67; 10 studies, 872 patients). Conclusion NIPPV was not associated with decrease in AOP frequency, although demonstrated lower odds of developing any AOP. However, definite recommendations cannot be made based on the quality of the published evidence. Key Points

scholarly journals Bi-Level Noninvasive Ventilation in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neonatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-273
Author(s):  
Anne Lee Solevåg ◽  
Po-Yin Cheung ◽  
Georg M. Schmölzer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Premature Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Bi-level noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been used in respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) as primary treatment, post-extubation, and to treat apnea. This review summarizes studies on bi-level NIV in premature infants with RDS. Nonsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nsNIPPV) and synchronized NIPPV (SNIPPV) use pressure settings ≥ those used during mechanical ventilation (MV), and biphasic continuous positive airway pressure (BiPAP) use two nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) levels ≤4 cm H<sub>2</sub>O apart. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review (Medline OVID and Pubmed) and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Primary outcomes were bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and mortality. Secondary outcomes included NIV failure (intubation) and extubation failure (re-intubation). Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between NIV modes (RevMan v 5.3, Copenhagen, Denmark). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twenty-four randomized controlled trials that largely did not correct for mean airway pressure (MAP) and used outdated ventilators were included. Compared with NCPAP, both nsNIPPV and SNIPPV resulted in less re-intubation (RR 0.88 with 95% CI (0.80, 0.97) and RR 0.20 (0.10, 0.38), respectively) and BPD (RR 0.69 (0.49, 0.97) and RR 0.51 (0.29, 0.88), respectively). nsNIPPV also resulted in less intubation (RR 0.57 (0.45, 0.73) versus NCPAP, with no difference in mortality. One study showed less intubation in BiPAP versus NCPAP. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Bi-level NIV versus NCPAP may reduce MV and BPD in premature infants with RDS. Studies comparing equivalent MAP utilizing currently available machines are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document