早产儿拔管后高流量鼻插管与鼻持续气道正压通气的比较研究

Ramy Saleh Morsy, Magda Mahmoud Sedky, R. Said, Aliaa A Ali, W. Abuelhamd
{"title":"早产儿拔管后高流量鼻插管与鼻持续气道正压通气的比较研究","authors":"Ramy Saleh Morsy, Magda Mahmoud Sedky, R. Said, Aliaa A Ali, W. Abuelhamd","doi":"10.22038/IJN.2020.43810.1753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aim of work: To support breathing of premature infants, there has been a trend toward less tracheal intubation, less mechanical ventilation, and more nasal respiratory support which can result in the improvement of successful extubation rate. The two types of nasal respiratory support after extubation, which are most known, are the nasal CPAP and High flow nasal cannula. The objective of current study is to investigate and compare successful extubation by using high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) versus conventional NCPAP after a period of endotracheal positive pressure ventilation. Patients and methods: This prospective study was conducted in the NICU of Gynecology and Obstetrics department of Kasr El Aini hospital on 210 preterm infants. Post extubation failure rates were compared between both groups (HFNC) and (NCPAP). The collected data were analyzed by SPSS program version 20.Results: Neonates who needed reintubation within 72 hour after initial extubation were higher in HFNC group (72.7%) versus (27.3%) in CPAP group (P-value 0.063) and (45.8%) of neonates in HFNC group needed re-intubation within one week of initial extubation versus (54.2%) in CPAP (P-value 0.970). Mean duration of respiratory support using HFNC was 3.7 days compared with 6.5 days using CPAP (p-value 0.001). Among neonates who suffered nasal trauma 90.6% of infants belong to CPAP group 12.5% while 9.4% belong to HFNC group (p-value 0.001). Conclusion: The use of CPAP and HFNC after extubation of preterm mechanically ventilated neonates was statistically equal regarding extubation failure.","PeriodicalId":14584,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Neonatology IJN","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Study between Postextubation of Preterm Infants into High-Flow Nasal Cannulae versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure\",\"authors\":\"Ramy Saleh Morsy, Magda Mahmoud Sedky, R. Said, Aliaa A Ali, W. Abuelhamd\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/IJN.2020.43810.1753\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and Aim of work: To support breathing of premature infants, there has been a trend toward less tracheal intubation, less mechanical ventilation, and more nasal respiratory support which can result in the improvement of successful extubation rate. The two types of nasal respiratory support after extubation, which are most known, are the nasal CPAP and High flow nasal cannula. The objective of current study is to investigate and compare successful extubation by using high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) versus conventional NCPAP after a period of endotracheal positive pressure ventilation. Patients and methods: This prospective study was conducted in the NICU of Gynecology and Obstetrics department of Kasr El Aini hospital on 210 preterm infants. Post extubation failure rates were compared between both groups (HFNC) and (NCPAP). The collected data were analyzed by SPSS program version 20.Results: Neonates who needed reintubation within 72 hour after initial extubation were higher in HFNC group (72.7%) versus (27.3%) in CPAP group (P-value 0.063) and (45.8%) of neonates in HFNC group needed re-intubation within one week of initial extubation versus (54.2%) in CPAP (P-value 0.970). Mean duration of respiratory support using HFNC was 3.7 days compared with 6.5 days using CPAP (p-value 0.001). Among neonates who suffered nasal trauma 90.6% of infants belong to CPAP group 12.5% while 9.4% belong to HFNC group (p-value 0.001). Conclusion: The use of CPAP and HFNC after extubation of preterm mechanically ventilated neonates was statistically equal regarding extubation failure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iranian Journal of Neonatology IJN\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iranian Journal of Neonatology IJN\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/IJN.2020.43810.1753\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Neonatology IJN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/IJN.2020.43810.1753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工作背景和目的:为了支持早产儿的呼吸,减少气管插管,减少机械通气,增加鼻呼吸支持已成为趋势,这可以提高拔管成功率。拔管后最广为人知的两种鼻呼吸支持方式是鼻CPAP和高流量鼻插管。本研究的目的是调查和比较在气管内正压通气一段时间后使用高流量鼻导管(HFNC)和传统NCPAP成功拔管的情况。患者和方法:本前瞻性研究在Kasr El Aini医院妇产科NICU对210名早产儿进行研究。比较两组(HFNC)和(NCPAP)拔管后失败率。收集的数据用SPSS软件进行分析。结果:HFNC组新生儿首次拔管后72小时内需要再插管的新生儿占72.7%,高于CPAP组(27.3%)(p值0.063);HFNC组新生儿首次拔管后1周内需要再插管的新生儿占45.8%,高于CPAP组(54.2%)(p值0.970)。HFNC组呼吸支持的平均持续时间为3.7天,而CPAP组为6.5天(p值0.001)。发生鼻外伤的新生儿中,90.6%属于CPAP组,12.5%属于HFNC组,9.4%属于HFNC组(p值0.001)。结论:早产儿机械通气拔管后使用CPAP与使用HFNC在拔管失败方面具有统计学意义。
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
A Comparative Study between Postextubation of Preterm Infants into High-Flow Nasal Cannulae versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
Background and Aim of work: To support breathing of premature infants, there has been a trend toward less tracheal intubation, less mechanical ventilation, and more nasal respiratory support which can result in the improvement of successful extubation rate. The two types of nasal respiratory support after extubation, which are most known, are the nasal CPAP and High flow nasal cannula. The objective of current study is to investigate and compare successful extubation by using high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) versus conventional NCPAP after a period of endotracheal positive pressure ventilation. Patients and methods: This prospective study was conducted in the NICU of Gynecology and Obstetrics department of Kasr El Aini hospital on 210 preterm infants. Post extubation failure rates were compared between both groups (HFNC) and (NCPAP). The collected data were analyzed by SPSS program version 20.Results: Neonates who needed reintubation within 72 hour after initial extubation were higher in HFNC group (72.7%) versus (27.3%) in CPAP group (P-value 0.063) and (45.8%) of neonates in HFNC group needed re-intubation within one week of initial extubation versus (54.2%) in CPAP (P-value 0.970). Mean duration of respiratory support using HFNC was 3.7 days compared with 6.5 days using CPAP (p-value 0.001). Among neonates who suffered nasal trauma 90.6% of infants belong to CPAP group 12.5% while 9.4% belong to HFNC group (p-value 0.001). Conclusion: The use of CPAP and HFNC after extubation of preterm mechanically ventilated neonates was statistically equal regarding extubation failure.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Radiofrequency Ablation of Umbilical Cord for Reduction of Twin Reversed Arterial Perfusion Sequence: A Case Series Early-Onset Neonatal Sepsis: A Retrospective Study among 1,119 Moroccan Newborns Admitted to the National Reference Center in Neonatology and Nutrition, Rabat, Morocco Association of Neuregulin Levels and Neuregulin-1 Polymorphism with Short-term Morbidities in Preterm Neonates Caudal regression syndrome: A case report and literature of review Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on health of preterm infants in Iran
×
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