Comparison of non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as post-extubation respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether post-extubation respiratory support via nsNIPPV decreases the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).

Methods: In this randomized, controlled, open, prospective, single-center clinical trial, we randomly assigned preterm ventilated infants with RDS to either nsNIPPV or NCPAP after extubation. The primary outcome, extubation failure, was defined by pre-specified failure criteria in the 72 hours after extubation.

Results: A total of 63 preterm ventilated infants were randomized to receive either nsNIPPV (n = 31) or NCPAP (n = 32). Extubation failure occurred in six (19.3%) of nsNIPPV group compared with nine (28.12%) of NCPAP group and was statistically not significant (p = 0.55). The duration of NIV was significantly lower in nsNIPPV group as compared to NCPAP group (40.4 ± 39.3 hours versus 111.8 ± 116.4 hours, p = 0.003). The duration of supplementary oxygen was significantly lower in nsNIPPV versus NCPAP group (84.9 ± 92.1 hours versus 190.1 ± 140.5 hours, p = 0.002). The rates of BPD in nsNIPPV group (2/29, 6.9%) were significantly lower than in NCPAP group (9/28, 32.14%) (p = 0.02).

Conclusions: Compared to NCPAP, nsNIPPV appears to be a feasible mode of extubation in preterm infants with significant beneficial effects of reduced duration of NIV support, supplementary oxygen and decreased rates of BPD.

• Mechanical ventilation
• NCPAP
• NIPPV
• non-invasive ventilation
• preterm infants

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Dean, Seth G S Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai for permitting them to publish the article. The authors would like to thank Dr Harshad Panchal for valuable contribution to the layout of the manuscript.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.