HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: adc.2006.096420v1 92/1/F19    most recent Submit a response Read responses to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Telford, K Articles by Marlow, N Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Telford, K Articles by Marlow, N Topic Collections Relevant Article

Respiratory outcome in late childhood after neonatal continuous negative pressure ventilation

¹ School of Human Development, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
² Children’s Services, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
³ Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor N Marlow
Academic Division of Child Health, School of Human Development, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK; neil.marlow{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Background: The outcome in late childhood for children entered into a randomised trial of continuous negative extrathoracic pressure (CNEP) versus standard respiratory management for the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress was studied. In the original trial, there were advantages in the duration of oxygen and the prevalence of chronic lung disease for those assigned to receive CNEP.

Aim: To determine whether the above differences had persisted into childhood.

Methods: Outpatient evaluation of children by a paediatrician using Spirometry (Vitalograph Spirometer 2120, Ennis, Ireland) and MicroRint (Micro Medical, Rochester, Kent, UK) techniques independently of the original trial. Parents completed questionnaires about their child’s respiratory history and social–demographic information.

Results: 133 (65%) survivors were evaluated at 9.6–14.9 years of age. The group examined were representative of the original cohort and no significant baseline differences were observed between children evaluated who had been allocated to CNEP or standard treatments. We compared Rint (before and after bronchodilator) and forced expiratory flow, volume and vital capacity between the two study groups; none were significant. Children in the standard group had received paediatric intensive care more often (p = 0.19) and were more likely to be receiving inhaled drugs for asthma (p = 0.19; all not significant).

Conclusions: No important differences were found at follow-up in late childhood in respiratory outcomes for children treated with neonatal CNEP or standard treatment. Caution should be exercised, as the original trial was not powered to show these differences, but there seems to be no long-term detriment in respiratory outcomes for children treated with CNEP in the neonatal period.

Abbreviations: CLD, chronic lung disease; CNEP, continuous negative extrathoracic pressure; FVC, forced vital capacity; HFOV, high-frequency ventilation oscillatory ventilation; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure

Relevant Article

Fantoms

Ben Stenson
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007 92: F1. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]