Periodic Rotation versus Continuous Application of Same Nasal Interface for Non-invasive Respiratory Support in Preterm Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

RAM Cannula versus Short Binasal Prongs for Non-invasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of RAM cannula with short binasal prongs (SBPs) as nasal interfaces in preterm infants requiring nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).

METHODS

The authors searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) and trial registries from inception until March 15, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the RAM cannula with SBP for delivering nCPAP/NIPPV. They performed a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was failure of nCPAP/NIPPV. Secondary outcomes included nasal injury, mechanical ventilation, air leaks, and mortality.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (825 participants) were included. There was no significant difference in nCPAP/NIPPV failure (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.87) or the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.01) between the RAM cannula and SBP groups (low to very low certainty). Compared with infants in the SBP group, those in the RAM cannula group had a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe nasal injury [(5 RCTs, 825 participants; RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66); low certainty] and any nasal injury [(RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.76; very low certainty)]. There was no significant difference in the other clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to SBP, the RAM cannula may have little to no effect on nCPAP/NIPPV failure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the use of RAM cannula possibly results in reduction in moderate to severe nasal trauma in preterm infants receiving nCPAP/NIPPV.