Early noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in the primary treatment of respiratory distress syndrome

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.

State of the art on neonatal noninvasive respiratory support: How physiological and technological principles explain the clinical outcomes

Noninvasive respiratory support has gained significant popularity in neonatal units because of its potential to reduce lung injury associated with invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimize lung injury, clinicians aim to apply for noninvasive respiratory support as early as possible. However, the physiological background and the technology behind such support modes are not always clear, and many open questions remain regarding the indications of use and clinical outcomes. This narrative review discusses the currently available evidence for various noninvasive respiratory support modes applied in Neonatal Medicine in terms of physiological effects and indications. Reviewed modes include nasal continuous positive airway pressure, nasal high-flow therapy, noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), synchronized NIPPV and noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. To enhance clinicians' awareness of each support mode's strengths and limitations, we summarize technical features related to the functioning mechanisms of devices and the physical properties of the interfaces commonly used for providing noninvasive respiratory support to neonates. We finally address areas of current controversy and suggest possible areas of research for implementing noninvasive respiratory support in neonatal intensive care units.

Non-invasive ventilatory support in neonates: An evidence-based update

Non-invasive ventilatory support (NIV) is considered the gold standard in the care of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). NIV from birth is superior to mechanical ventilation (MV) for the prevention of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), with a number needed to treat between 25 and 35. Various methods of NIV are available, some of them extensively researched and with well proven efficacy, whilst others are needing further research. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) has replaced routine invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) for the initial stabilization and the treatment of RDS. Choosing the most suitable form of NIV and the most appropriate patient interface depends on several factors, including gestational age, underlying lung pathophysiology and the local facilities. In this review, we present the currently available evidence on NIV as primary ventilatory support to preventing intubation and for secondary ventilatory support, following extubation. We review nCPAP, nasal high-flow cannula, nasal intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation, bi-level positive airway pressure, nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and nasal neurally adjusted ventilatory assist modes. We also discuss most suitable NIV devices and patient interfaces during resuscitation of the newborn in the delivery room.

Nasal High-Frequency Ventilation

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory (NHFOV) and percussive (NHFPV) ventilation represent 2 nonconventional techniques that may be useful in selected neonatal patients. We offer here a comprehensive review of physiology, mechanics, and biology for both techniques. As NHFOV is the technique with the wider experience, we also provided a meta-analysis of available clinical trials, suggested ventilatory parameters boundaries, and proposed a physiology-based clinical protocol to use NHFOV.

Hazards to avoid in future neonatal studies of nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation: lessons from an early terminated trial

Objective

To investigate whether nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) started immediately after extubation of mechanically ventilated very low birth weight infants reduces the partial pressure of carbon dioxide at 72 h after extubation in comparison with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. This randomised controlled single-centre trial aimed to include 68 preterm infants at high risk of extubation failure.

Results

Implementation of the study protocol was feasible. However, from 2015 to 2017, only six patients could be recruited, leading to early termination of the trial. The slow recruitment was due to the introduction of new strategies to avoid endotracheal mechanical ventilation, which reduced the number of eligible infants. Moreover, the included infants failed their extubation more often than anticipated, thereby increasing the required sample size. Based on our single-centre experience, we provide information for study planning and discuss the specific requirements for future trial protocols on nHFOV. The extubation of high-risk infants into nHFOV could well be beneficial, but a multicentric approach is necessary to investigate this hypothesis.

Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02340299, on 16 January 2015

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-019-4268-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation as respiratory support in preterm infants: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV), a relatively new modality, is gaining popularity despite scarce evidence. This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nHFOV as respiratory support in premature infants.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception of the database to January 2019. All published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of nHFOV therapy with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or biphasic nCPAP (BP-CPAP) in newborns for respiratory support were included. All meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs involving 463 patients were included. The meta-analysis estimated a lower risk of intubation (relative risk = 0.50, 95% confidence interval of 0.36 to 0.70) and more effective clearance of carbon dioxide (weighted mean difference = - 4.61, 95% confidence interval of - 7.94 to - 1.28) in the nHFOV group than in the nCPAP/BP-CPAP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that nHFOV, as respiratory support in preterm infants, significantly remove carbon dioxide and reduce the risk of intubation compared with nCPAP/BP-CPAP. The appropriate parameter settings for different types of noninvasive high-frequency ventilators, the effect of nHFOV in extremely preterm infants, and the long-term safety of nHFOV need to be assessed in large trials.

New modalities for non-invasive positive pressure ventilation: A review article

Efficiency of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure has been shown in many published studies. In this review article, we introduced new modalities of non-invasive ventilation (NIV), clinical settings in which NIV can be used and a practical summary of the latest official guidelines published by the European Respiratory Clinical Practice. Clinical trials and review articles in four databases up to 25 February 2018 about new modalities of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation were reviewed. Commonly used modalities for treatment of respiratory failure include: CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) and BiPAP (bilevel positive airway pressure) or NIPSV (noninvasive pressure support ventilation). The limitations of the BiPAP method are the trigger and cycle asynchrony, inadequate volume delivery and increased respiratory rate. Newer methods, such as adaptive servo-ventilation, have been developed to treat central and complex sleep apnea and the NAVA (neutrally adjusted ventilatory assist) to improve the trigger and cycle asynchrony. In the proportional assist ventilation, unlike the pressure support ventilation, with increased patient effort (flow) the tidal volume increases and it prevents the increase in the respiratory rate and respiratory distress. High-flow nasal cannula is a non-invasive technique that does not provide respiratory support, but provides a mixture of oxygen to the patient. The use of non-invasive pursed-lip breathing ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients reduces dyspnea (decreases respiratory rate) and increases blood oxygen saturation. New modalities of NIV improve patient comfort and patient-ventilator interactions, and are recommended in patients with respiratory failure.