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.2007.118109v1 93/2/F148    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Owen, L S Articles by Davis, P G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Owen, L S Articles by Davis, P G

Neonatal nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation: a survey of practice in England

¹ Neonatal Services, Royal Women’s Hospital, Victoria Australia
² University of Melbourne, Australia

Correspondence to:
Dr L S Owen, Royal Women’s Hospital, Grattan Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia; louise.owen{at}rwh.org.au

Background: Less invasive techniques of respiratory support are increasingly popular.

Objective: To determine how widespread the use of neonatal nasal intermittent positive airway pressure (NIPPV) has become and describe the range of practice used in NIPPV in England.

Methods: 95 English Neonatal intensive care units were asked to provide information about NIPPV devices, interfaces, indications, guidelines, use of synchronisation, complications, settings and weaning.

Results: 91 (96%) units replied. NIPPV was used by 44/91 (48%) units; few complications were seen. 34/44 (77%) used a synchronising device, 35/44 (80%) used NIPPV for "rescuing" babies for whom continuous positive airway pressure failed—59% routinely after extubation and 16% as a first-line treatment. A wide range of pressure and rate settings were used.

Conclusions: In England, NIPPV is commonly used, with considerable variability in the techniques applied. The wide range of clinical approaches highlights the paucity of evidence available. More evidence is needed to establish best practice.