Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillation ventilation as post- extubation respiratory support in neonates: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation (NHFOV) is increasingly being adopted to reduce the need for invasive ventilation after extubation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of NHFOV as post-extubation respiratory support in newborns compared to other non-invasive respiratory support modes.

MATERIAL & METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials comparing NHFOV with other non-invasive modes post-extubation in newborns. Data sources were MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO international clinical trials registry platform and Clinical Trial Registry, forward and backward citation search. Methodological quality of studies was assessed by Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool 1.0.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 21 studies and 3294 participants, the majority of whom were preterm. NHFOV compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) reduced reintubation within seven days (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.53) after extubation. It also reduced extubation failure (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.51) and reintubation within 72 hrs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and pulmonary air leak (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.79) compared to NCPAP. The rate of reintubation within seven days (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.14) was similar whereas extubation failure (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83) and reintubation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89) within 72 hrs were lower in NHFOV group compared to nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. There was no effect on other outcomes. Overall quality of the evidence was low to very low in both comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

NHFOV may reduce the rate of reintubation and extubation failure post-extubation without increasing complications. Majority of the trials were exclusively done in preterm neonates. Further research with high methodological quality is warranted.

Blinding Assessments in Neonatal Ventilation Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Meta-Epidemiological Review

INTRODUCTION

Randomization and blinding are generally important in randomized trials. In neonatology, blinding of ventilation strategies is unfeasible if not impossible and we hypothesized that its importance has been overestimated, while the peculiarities of the neonatal patient and the specific outcomes have not been considered.

METHODS

For this meta-epidemiological review, we searched PubMed and Scopus databases in November 2023. We included all meta-analyses focusing on ventilation, published in past 5 years, and reporting either mortality or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) as an outcome. We extracted the information about how the authors had analyzed risk of bias and evidence certainty.

RESULTS

We screened 494 abstracts and included 40 meta-analyses. Overall, 13 of the 40 reviews assessed blinding properly. Australian and European authors were most likely to perform correct assessment of the blinding (p = 0.03) and the use of RoB 2.0 tool was also associated with proper assessment (p < 0.001). In multivariate regression, the use of RoB 2.0 was the only factor associated with a proper assessment (Beta 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.99]). GRADE ratings were performed in 25 reviews, and the authors downgraded the evidence certainty due to risk of bias in 19 of these and none of these reviews performed the blinding assessment correctly.

CONCLUSION

In past neonatal evidence syntheses, the role of blinding has been mostly overestimated, which has led to downgrading of evidence certainty. Objective outcomes (such as mortality and BPD) do not need to be downgraded due to lack of blinding, as the knowledge of the received intervention does not influence the outcome assessment.

Non-invasive high-frequency ventilation in newborn infants with respiratory distress

BACKGROUND

Respiratory distress occurs in up to 7% of newborns, with respiratory support (RS) provided invasively via an endotracheal (ET) tube or non-invasively via a nasal interface. Invasive ventilation increases the risk of lung injury and chronic lung disease (CLD). Using non-invasive strategies, with or without minimally invasive surfactant, may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and the risk of lung damage in newborn infants with respiratory distress.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of nasal high-frequency ventilation (nHFV) compared to invasive ventilation via an ET tube or other non-invasive ventilation methods on morbidity and mortality in preterm and term infants with or at risk of respiratory distress.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and three trial registries in April 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster- or quasi-RCTs of nHFV in newborn infants with respiratory distress compared to invasive or non-invasive ventilation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and undertook GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 studies, mostly in low- to middle-income settings, that investigated this therapy in 5068 preterm and 46 term infants. nHFV compared to invasive respiratory therapy for initial RS We are very uncertain whether nHFV reduces mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.18; 1 study, 80 infants) or the incidence of CLD (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.59; 2 studies, 180 infants), both very low-certainty. ET intubation, death or CLD, severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and neurodevelopmental disability (ND) were not reported. nHFV vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) used for initial RS We are very uncertain whether nHFV reduces mortality before hospital discharge (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.41; 4 studies, 531 infants; very low-certainty). nHFV may reduce ET intubation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; 5 studies, 571 infants), but there may be little or no difference in CLD (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.27; 4 studies, 481 infants); death or CLD (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.52 to 12.01; 1 study, 68 participants); or severe IVH (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.78; 4 studies, 531 infants), all low-certainty evidence. ND was not reported. nHFV vs nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (nIPPV) used for initial RS nHFV may result in little to no difference in mortality before hospital discharge (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.83; 2 studies, 84 infants; low-certainty). nHFV may have little or no effect in reducing ET intubation (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.34; 5 studies, 228 infants; low-certainty). There may be a reduction in CLD (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.95; 5 studies, 307 infants; low-certainty). A single study (36 infants) reported no events for severe IVH. Death or CLD and ND were not reported. nHFV vs high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) used for initial RS We are very uncertain whether nHFV reduces ET intubation (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 13.27; 1 study, 37 infants) or reduces CLD (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.98; 1 study, 37 participants), both very low-certainty. There were no mortality events before hospital discharge or severe IVH. Other deaths, CLD and ND, were not reported. nHFV vs nCPAP used for RS following planned extubation nHFV probably results in little or no difference in mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.64; 6 studies, 1472 infants; moderate-certainty). nHFV may result in a reduction in ET reintubation (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 11 studies, 1897 infants) and CLD (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 10 studies, 1829 infants), both low-certainty. nHFV probably has little or no effect on death or CLD (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.06; 2 studies, 966 infants) and severe IVH (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 3 studies, 1117 infants), both moderate-certainty. We are very uncertain whether nHFV reduces ND (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.29; 1 study, 74 infants; very low-certainty). nHFV versus nIPPV used for RS following planned extubation nHFV may have little or no effect on mortality before hospital discharge (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.79; 2 studies, 984 infants; low-certainty). There is probably a reduction in ET reintubation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 6 studies, 1364 infants), but little or no effect on CLD (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.04; 4 studies, 1236 infants); death or CLD (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1070 infants); or severe IVH (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10; 4 studies, 1162 infants), all moderate-certainty. One study reported there might be no difference in ND (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.16; 1 study, 72 infants; low-certainty). nHFV versus nIPPV following initial non-invasive RS failure nHFV may have little or no effect on mortality before hospital discharge (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.10 to 21.33); or ET intubation (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.98); or CLD (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.47); or severe IVH (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.87); 1 study, 39 participants, all low- or very low-certainty. Other deaths or CLD and ND were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For initial RS, we are very uncertain if using nHFV compared to invasive respiratory therapy affects clinical outcomes. However, nHFV may reduce intubation when compared to nCPAP. For planned extubation, nHFV may reduce the risk of reintubation compared to nCPAP and nIPPV. nHFV may reduce the risk of CLD when compared to nCPAP. Following initial non-invasive respiratory support failure, nHFV when compared to nIPPV may result in little to no difference in intubation. Large trials, particularly in high-income settings, are needed to determine the role of nHFV in initial RS and following the failure of other non-invasive respiratory support. Also, the optimal settings of nHVF require further investigation.

Safety of bubble nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress

OBJECTIVE

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) is an effective therapy for infants in respiratory distress. We here report the safety of a novel, low-cost, non-electric bubble NIPPV device in comparison with bubble NCPAP.

STUDY DESIGN

At Paramitha Children's Hospital (Hyderabad, India), preterm (n = 60) neonates with moderate respiratory distress were pragmatically allocated to bubble NCPAP (5-8 cm H2O) or bubble NIPPV (Phigh 8-12 cm H2O/Plow 5-8 cm H2O) based on staff and equipment availability. Primary outcomes to assess safety included clinically relevant pneumothorax, nasal septal necrosis, or abdominal distention.

RESULTS

One patient in each arm developed minor nasal septal injury (grade 3 on NCPAP, grade 2 on NIPPV); no patients in either arm developed a clinically significant pneumothorax or abdominal distention.

CONCLUSION

The similar rates of nasal septal injury, pneumothorax and abdominal distention suggest that bubble NIPPV has a similar safety profile as bubble NCPAP for preterm infants in respiratory distress.