在产房使用哪种 CPAP?比较两种为新生儿提供持续气道正压的方法。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS BMJ Paediatrics Open Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002948
Viktoria Gruber, Mark Brian Tracy, Murray Kenneth Hinder, Stephanie Morakeas, Mithilesh Dronavalli, Thomas Drevhammar
{"title":"在产房使用哪种 CPAP?比较两种为新生儿提供持续气道正压的方法。","authors":"Viktoria Gruber, Mark Brian Tracy, Murray Kenneth Hinder, Stephanie Morakeas, Mithilesh Dronavalli, Thomas Drevhammar","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a recommended first-line therapy for infants with respiratory distress at birth. Resuscitation devices incorporating CPAP delivery can have significantly different imposed resistances affecting airway pressure stability and work of breathing.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare CPAP performance of two resuscitation devices (Neopuff T-piece resuscitator and rPAP) in a neonatal lung model simulating spontaneous breathing effort at birth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The parameters assessed were variation in delivered pressures (∆P), tidal volume (VT), inspiratory effort (model pressure respiratory muscle (PRM)) and work of breathing (WOB). Two data sequences were required with Neopuff and one with rPAP: (1) set PRM with changes in VT and (2) constant VT (preterm 6 mL, term 22 mL) with increased effort. Data were collected at CPAP settings of 5, 7 and 9 cmH<sub>2</sub>O using a 1 kg preterm (Compliance: 0.5 mL/cmH<sub>2</sub>O) and 3.5 kg term (1.0 mL/cmH<sub>2</sub>O) model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2298 breaths were analysed (760 rPAP, 795 Neopuff constant VT, 743 Neopuff constant PRM). With CPAP at 9 cmH<sub>2</sub>O and set VT the mean ∆P (cmH<sub>2</sub>O) rPAP vs Neopuff 1.1 vs 5.6 (preterm) and 1.9 vs 13.4 (term), WOB (mJ) 4.6 vs 6.1 (preterm) and 35.3 vs 44.5 (term), and with set PRM mean VT (ml) decreased to 6.2 vs 5.2 (preterm) and 22.3 vs 17.5 (term) p<0.001. Similar results were found at pressures of 5 and 7 cmH<sub>2</sub>O.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>rPAP had smaller pressure swings than Neopuff at all CPAP levels and was thus more pressure stable. WOB was higher with Neopuff when VT was held constant. VT reduced with Neopuff when respiratory effort was constant.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552556/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What CPAP to use in the delivery room? Bench comparison of two methods to provide continuous positive airways pressure in neonates.\",\"authors\":\"Viktoria Gruber, Mark Brian Tracy, Murray Kenneth Hinder, Stephanie Morakeas, Mithilesh Dronavalli, Thomas Drevhammar\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a recommended first-line therapy for infants with respiratory distress at birth. Resuscitation devices incorporating CPAP delivery can have significantly different imposed resistances affecting airway pressure stability and work of breathing.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare CPAP performance of two resuscitation devices (Neopuff T-piece resuscitator and rPAP) in a neonatal lung model simulating spontaneous breathing effort at birth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The parameters assessed were variation in delivered pressures (∆P), tidal volume (VT), inspiratory effort (model pressure respiratory muscle (PRM)) and work of breathing (WOB). Two data sequences were required with Neopuff and one with rPAP: (1) set PRM with changes in VT and (2) constant VT (preterm 6 mL, term 22 mL) with increased effort. Data were collected at CPAP settings of 5, 7 and 9 cmH<sub>2</sub>O using a 1 kg preterm (Compliance: 0.5 mL/cmH<sub>2</sub>O) and 3.5 kg term (1.0 mL/cmH<sub>2</sub>O) model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2298 breaths were analysed (760 rPAP, 795 Neopuff constant VT, 743 Neopuff constant PRM). With CPAP at 9 cmH<sub>2</sub>O and set VT the mean ∆P (cmH<sub>2</sub>O) rPAP vs Neopuff 1.1 vs 5.6 (preterm) and 1.9 vs 13.4 (term), WOB (mJ) 4.6 vs 6.1 (preterm) and 35.3 vs 44.5 (term), and with set PRM mean VT (ml) decreased to 6.2 vs 5.2 (preterm) and 22.3 vs 17.5 (term) p<0.001. Similar results were found at pressures of 5 and 7 cmH<sub>2</sub>O.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>rPAP had smaller pressure swings than Neopuff at all CPAP levels and was thus more pressure stable. WOB was higher with Neopuff when VT was held constant. VT reduced with Neopuff when respiratory effort was constant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Paediatrics Open\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552556/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Paediatrics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002948\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002948","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:持续气道正压(CPAP)是治疗出生时呼吸窘迫婴儿的推荐一线疗法。目的:比较两种复苏设备(Neopuff T-piece 复苏器和 rPAP)在新生儿肺模型中的 CPAP 性能,模拟出生时的自主呼吸:方法:评估的参数包括娩出压力(ΔP)、潮气量(VT)、吸气力度(模型压力呼吸肌(PRM))和呼吸功(WOB)的变化。使用 Neopuff 需要两个数据序列,使用 rPAP 需要一个数据序列:(1) 设置 PRM,改变 VT;(2) 恒定 VT(早产儿 6 毫升,足月儿 22 毫升),增加用力。使用 1 公斤早产儿(顺应性:0.5 毫升/厘米水深)和 3.5 公斤足月儿(1.0 毫升/厘米水深)模型,在 5、7 和 9 厘米水深的 CPAP 设置下收集数据。结果:分析了 2298 次呼吸(760 次 rPAP、795 次 Neopuff 恒定 VT、743 次 Neopuff 恒定 PRM)。使用 9 cmH2O CPAP 和设定 VT 时,rPAP 与 Neopuff 的平均 ∆P (cmH2O) 分别为 1.1 vs 5.6(早产儿)和 1.9 vs 13.4(足月儿),WOB (mJ) 分别为 4.6 vs 6.1(早产儿)和 35.3 vs 44.5(足月儿)。结论:在所有 CPAP 水平下,rPAP 的压力波动均小于 Neopuff,因此压力更稳定。当 VT 保持不变时,Neopuff 的 WOB 更高。当呼吸强度保持不变时,Neopuff 可降低 VT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What CPAP to use in the delivery room? Bench comparison of two methods to provide continuous positive airways pressure in neonates.

Background: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a recommended first-line therapy for infants with respiratory distress at birth. Resuscitation devices incorporating CPAP delivery can have significantly different imposed resistances affecting airway pressure stability and work of breathing.

Aim: To compare CPAP performance of two resuscitation devices (Neopuff T-piece resuscitator and rPAP) in a neonatal lung model simulating spontaneous breathing effort at birth.

Methods: The parameters assessed were variation in delivered pressures (∆P), tidal volume (VT), inspiratory effort (model pressure respiratory muscle (PRM)) and work of breathing (WOB). Two data sequences were required with Neopuff and one with rPAP: (1) set PRM with changes in VT and (2) constant VT (preterm 6 mL, term 22 mL) with increased effort. Data were collected at CPAP settings of 5, 7 and 9 cmH2O using a 1 kg preterm (Compliance: 0.5 mL/cmH2O) and 3.5 kg term (1.0 mL/cmH2O) model.

Results: 2298 breaths were analysed (760 rPAP, 795 Neopuff constant VT, 743 Neopuff constant PRM). With CPAP at 9 cmH2O and set VT the mean ∆P (cmH2O) rPAP vs Neopuff 1.1 vs 5.6 (preterm) and 1.9 vs 13.4 (term), WOB (mJ) 4.6 vs 6.1 (preterm) and 35.3 vs 44.5 (term), and with set PRM mean VT (ml) decreased to 6.2 vs 5.2 (preterm) and 22.3 vs 17.5 (term) p<0.001. Similar results were found at pressures of 5 and 7 cmH2O.

Conclusion: rPAP had smaller pressure swings than Neopuff at all CPAP levels and was thus more pressure stable. WOB was higher with Neopuff when VT was held constant. VT reduced with Neopuff when respiratory effort was constant.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
期刊最新文献
Mental healthcare in paediatric epilepsy clinics: implementation by non-mental health professionals. Design and validation of Iranian Child Health-Friendly Neighbourhood checklist: a mixed-methods study. Hearing loss in newborn infants with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy: protocol for a case-control study. Improving childhood immunisation in Indonesia: challenges and solutions. Investigating awareness and implementation of adrenaline auto-injectors (AAI) via the 'Spare Pens in Schools' scheme in Wales: a cross-sectional pilot study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1