Nasal High-Flow Therapy as Primary Respiratory Support for Preterm Infants without the Need for Rescue with Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

Neonatology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanja Zivanovic ◽  
Alexandra Scrivens ◽  
Raffaella Panza ◽  
Peter Reynolds ◽  
Nicola Laforgia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Nasal High Flow Therapy

Comparative Study of the Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Nasal High-Flow Therapy on Diaphragmatic Dimensions in Preterm Infants

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (05) ◽  
pp. 448-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed El-Mogy ◽  
Hanan El-Halaby ◽  
Gehan Attia ◽  
Hesham Abdel-Hady
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Respiratory Dysfunction ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Nasal High Flow Therapy

Objective Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and nasal high-flow therapy (nHFT) are the most common forms of noninvasive respiratory support in preterm infants. We conducted this study to compare effects of nCPAP and nHFT on diaphragmatic dimensions as assessed by bedside ultrasonography in preterm infants. Study Design A prospective, randomized crossover study comprised 24 preterm infants. Group 1 (n = 12): started on nCPAP for 60 minutes and then switched to nHFT for 60 minutes. Group 2 (n = 12): started on nHFT for 60 minutes then switched to nCPAP for 60 minutes. Ultrasonographic assessment of diaphragmatic dimensions was performed at the end of each epoch. Results There were no statistically significant differences in diaphragmatic dimensions at the end of each epoch of nCPAP or nHFT. The diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF) was not significantly different with either nCPAP or nHFT [23.4 (13.7–28.0) versus 23.4 (11.2–31.6), p = 0.57]. No significant differences were found regarding heart rate, respiratory rate, Silverman–Anderson scores, and SpO2 on nCPAP and nHFT. All infants enrolled tolerated the crossover maneuver. Conclusion Stable preterm infants (30.3 ± 2.2 weeks' gestation) with mild respiratory dysfunction show comparable effects on diaphragm thickness and excursion during relatively brief periods of support on nCPAP or nHFT. Clinical Trial Registration Registry name: Clinical Trials.gov. Registration number: NCT02421328. Web link to study on registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02421328.

scholarly journals Safety of Bottle-Feeding Under Nasal Respiratory Support in Preterm Lambs With and Without Tachypnoea

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basma Fathi Elsewadi ◽  
Nathalie Samson ◽  
Charlène Nadeau ◽  
Kristien Vanhaverbeke ◽  
Nam Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Bottle Feeding ◽  
Oral Feeding ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Or Efficiency ◽  
Tracheal Pressure

Aim: Convalescing preterm infants often require non-invasive respiratory support, such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal cannulas. One challenging milestone for preterm infants is achieving full oral feeding. Some teams fear nasal respiratory support might disrupt sucking–swallowing–breathing coordination and induce severe cardiorespiratory events. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety of oral feeding of preterm lambs on nasal respiratory support, with or without tachypnoea.Methods: Sucking, swallowing and breathing functions, as well as electrocardiogram, oxygen haemoglobin saturation, arterial blood gases and videofluoroscopic swallowing study were recorded in 15 preterm lambs during bottle-feeding. Four randomly ordered conditions were studied: control, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (6 cmH2O), high-flow nasal cannulas (7 L•min–1), and high-flow nasal cannulas at 7 L•min–1 at a tracheal pressure of 6 cmH2O. The recordings were repeated on days 7–8 and 13–14 to assess the effect of maturation.Results: None of the respiratory support impaired the safety or efficiency of oral feeding, even with tachypnoea. No respiratory support systematically impacted sucking–swallowing–breathing coordination, with or without tachypnoea. No effect of maturation was found.Conclusion: This translational physiology study, uniquely conducted in a relevant animal model of preterm infant with respiratory impairment, shows that nasal respiratory support does not impact the safety or efficiency of bottle-feeding or sucking–swallowing–breathing coordination. These results suggest that clinical studies on bottle-feeding in preterm infants under nasal continuous positive airway pressure and/or high-flow nasal cannulas can be safely undertaken.

Systematic review of high-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure for primary support in preterm infants

2021 ◽  
pp. fetalneonatal-2020-321094
Author(s):  
Shaam Bruet ◽  
Marine Butin ◽  
Frederic Dutheil
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Nasal Trauma

IntroductionWe conducted a meta-analysis of trials that compared efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as primary respiratory support in preterm infants and a study of the impact of clinical relevant parameters.MethodsDatabases were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing HFNC with CPAP as primary respiratory support in preterm infants. Treatment failure was considered as primary outcome and adverse events as secondary outcomes. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) in intention-to-treat analysis and random-effects meta-analyses of risks were conducted.ResultsWe included 10 studies for a total of 1830 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated an RR of treatment failure multiplied by 1.34 using HFNC compared with CPAP (RR=1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.68, I2=16.2%). Secondary outcome meta-analysis showed no difference in intubation rates (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.15) and a lower rate of nasal trauma using HFNC compared with CPAP (RR=0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65, I²=0.0%). Meta-regressions did not show any influence of gestational age and weight at birth, HFNC flow rate, type of CPAP generator or use of surfactant.ConclusionsDespite a higher risk of treatment failure, considering no difference in intubation rates and a lower rate of nasal trauma using HFNC compared with CPAP, we suggest that HFNC should be used as primary respiratory support in preterm infants.

scholarly journals FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e038002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvin Richards-Belle ◽  
Peter Davis ◽  
Laura Drikite ◽  
Richard Feltbower ◽  
Richard Grieve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
First Line ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Paediatric Critical Care

IntroductionEven though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children.Methods and analysisWe will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.Ethics and disseminationThis master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England—Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN60048867

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document