| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
a Department of
Pediatrics, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, G Gaslini Institute,
University of Genova, Genova, Italy, b Service of Biostatistics and
Epidemiology, G Gaslini Institute
Correspondence to: Dr Mazzella, Department of Pediatrics, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, G Gaslini Institute, University of Genova, Largo Gerolamo Gaslini 5, 16148 Genova, Italy massimomazzella{at}ospedale-gaslini.ge.it
Accepted 3 April 2001
OBJECTIVE
To compare
the effectiveness of the Infant Flow Driver (IFD) with single prong
nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in preterm neonates
affected by respiratory distress syndrome.
DESIGNRandomised
controlled study.
PATIENTSBetween
September 1997 and March 1999, 36 preterm infants who were eligible for
CPAP treatment were randomly selected for either nCPAP or IFD and
studied prospectively for changes in oxygen requirement and/or
respiratory rate. The requirement for mechanical ventilation,
complications of treatment, and effects on mid-term outcome were also evaluated.
RESULTSUse of the IFD
had a significantly beneficial effect on both oxygen requirement and
respiratory rate (p < 0.0001) when compared with nCPAP. Moreover,
O2 requirement and respiratory rate were significantly
decreased by four hours (p < 0.001 and p < 0.03 respectively).
The probability of remaining supplementary oxygen free over the first
48 hours of treatment was significantly higher in patients treated with
the IFD than with nCPAP (p < 0.02). IFD treated patients had a
higher success (weaning) rate (94% v 72 %)
and shorter duration of treatment (49.3 (31)
v 56 (29.7) hours respectively; mean (SD)),
although the difference was not significant.
CONCLUSIONSIFD
appears to be a feasible device for managing respiratory distress
syndrome in preterm infants, and benefits may be had with regard to
oxygen requirement and respiratory rate when compared with nCPAP. The
trend towards reduced requirement for mechanical ventilation, shorter
clinical recovery time, and shorter duration of treatment requires
further evaluation in a multicentre randomised clinical trial.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A A Hutchison and S Bignall Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in the preterm neonate: reducing endotrauma and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., January 1, 2008; 93(1): F64 - F68. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R K Bomont and I U Cheema Use of nasal continuous positive airway pressure during neonatal transfers Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., March 1, 2006; 91(2): F85 - F89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. M. Stefanescu, W. P. Murphy, B. J. Hansell, M. Fuloria, T. M. Morgan, and J. L. Aschner A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Two Different Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Systems for the Successful Extubation of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants Pediatrics, November 1, 2003; 112(5): 1031 - 1038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A G De Paoli, C Morley, and P G Davis Nasal CPAP for neonates: what do we know in 2003? Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., May 1, 2003; 88(3): F168 - F172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
| ARCH DIS CHILD | FETAL NEONATAL ED | ED PRACTICE |
