Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus non-invasive intermittent mandatory ventilation as a rescue mode in preterm infants with respiratory distress on nasal CPAP-a randomized control trial.
R D Rachana, Tejopratap Oleti, D Saikiran, Venkateshwarlu Vardhelli, Sruthi Thiruveedi, Altaf Hussain, Prasen Reddy Tamatam
{"title":"Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus non-invasive intermittent mandatory ventilation as a rescue mode in preterm infants with respiratory distress on nasal CPAP-a randomized control trial.","authors":"R D Rachana, Tejopratap Oleti, D Saikiran, Venkateshwarlu Vardhelli, Sruthi Thiruveedi, Altaf Hussain, Prasen Reddy Tamatam","doi":"10.1007/s00431-025-06041-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare NHFOV in decreasing the need for mechanical ventilation in the first 7 days of randomization in preterm infants born before 34 weeks of gestational age having nCPAP failure when used as rescue mode compared to NIMV. All eligible neonates were randomized and allocated to either NHFOV or NIMV group after taking the consent from the parents. Standardized protocol was followed on initiation, titration, weaning, and optimization of all the respiratory supports. In this study, a total of 45 neonates were eligible; among them, 20 neonates were randomized to NIMV group and 20 neonates to NHFOV group remaining 5 infants were missed due to the non-availability of a machine (n = 4) and missed randomization (n = 1). The primary outcome was need for mechanical ventilation within first 7 days of randomization in NIMV and NHFOV group was 45% and 40% (p = 0.85, OR = 1.22 (CI 0.35-4.3)). The secondary outcome was a duration of ventilation within 72 h of randomization was 40% vs. 31.6% in NIMV and NHFOV group (p = 0.58). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia was 5% and 10% in NIMV and NHFOV group with p = 0.548, OR = 0.47 (CI 0.39-5.6), and mortality was one infant in NIMV and 3 infants in NHFOV group (p = 0.568, OR = 0.29 (CI 0.02-3.1)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NIMV and NHFOV are comparable in reducing the rates of mechanical ventilation within 72 h and within 7 days of post-randomization. Multi-centric trials with large sample sizes are required to prove the hypothesis.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>www.ctri.nic.in id CTRI/2021/10/037681, registered on October 29, 2021.</p><p><strong>What is known: </strong>• NIMV or nHFOV being used as primary as well as post extubation respiratory support in neonates. • NIMV and nHFOV has shown better clinical outcomes than nCPAP when used as primary and post extubation respiratory support.</p><p><strong>What is new: </strong>• NIMV and nHFOV can be used as rescue mode after CPAP failure to prevent need for mechanical ventilation. • nHFOV appears promising as rescue mode in neonates who meets CPAP failure criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":11997,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pediatrics","volume":"184 3","pages":"205"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-025-06041-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
To compare NHFOV in decreasing the need for mechanical ventilation in the first 7 days of randomization in preterm infants born before 34 weeks of gestational age having nCPAP failure when used as rescue mode compared to NIMV. All eligible neonates were randomized and allocated to either NHFOV or NIMV group after taking the consent from the parents. Standardized protocol was followed on initiation, titration, weaning, and optimization of all the respiratory supports. In this study, a total of 45 neonates were eligible; among them, 20 neonates were randomized to NIMV group and 20 neonates to NHFOV group remaining 5 infants were missed due to the non-availability of a machine (n = 4) and missed randomization (n = 1). The primary outcome was need for mechanical ventilation within first 7 days of randomization in NIMV and NHFOV group was 45% and 40% (p = 0.85, OR = 1.22 (CI 0.35-4.3)). The secondary outcome was a duration of ventilation within 72 h of randomization was 40% vs. 31.6% in NIMV and NHFOV group (p = 0.58). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia was 5% and 10% in NIMV and NHFOV group with p = 0.548, OR = 0.47 (CI 0.39-5.6), and mortality was one infant in NIMV and 3 infants in NHFOV group (p = 0.568, OR = 0.29 (CI 0.02-3.1)).
Conclusion: NIMV and NHFOV are comparable in reducing the rates of mechanical ventilation within 72 h and within 7 days of post-randomization. Multi-centric trials with large sample sizes are required to prove the hypothesis.
Trial registration: www.ctri.nic.in id CTRI/2021/10/037681, registered on October 29, 2021.
What is known: • NIMV or nHFOV being used as primary as well as post extubation respiratory support in neonates. • NIMV and nHFOV has shown better clinical outcomes than nCPAP when used as primary and post extubation respiratory support.
What is new: • NIMV and nHFOV can be used as rescue mode after CPAP failure to prevent need for mechanical ventilation. • nHFOV appears promising as rescue mode in neonates who meets CPAP failure criteria.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Pediatrics (EJPE) is a leading peer-reviewed medical journal which covers the entire field of pediatrics. The editors encourage authors to submit original articles, reviews, short communications, and correspondence on all relevant themes and topics.
EJPE is particularly committed to the publication of articles on important new clinical research that will have an immediate impact on clinical pediatric practice. The editorial office very much welcomes ideas for publications, whether individual articles or article series, that fit this goal and is always willing to address inquiries from authors regarding potential submissions. Invited review articles on clinical pediatrics that provide comprehensive coverage of a subject of importance are also regularly commissioned.
The short publication time reflects both the commitment of the editors and publishers and their passion for new developments in the field of pediatrics.
EJPE is active on social media (@EurJPediatrics) and we invite you to participate.
EJPE is the official journal of the European Academy of Paediatrics (EAP) and publishes guidelines and statements in cooperation with the EAP.