High-flow nasal cannulae are associated with increased diaphragm activation compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants

Effects of Nasal Respiratory Support on Laryngeal and Esophageal Reflexes in Preterm Lambs

BACKGROUND

Significant cardiorespiratory events can be triggered in preterm infants as part of laryngeal chemoreflexes (LCRs) and esophageal reflexes (ERs). We previously showed that nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) blunted the cardiorespiratory inhibition induced with LCRs. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of nCPAP and high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) on the cardiorespiratory events induced during LCRs and ERs. The hypothesis is that nCPAP but not HFNC decreases the cardiorespiratory inhibition observed during LCRs and ERs.

METHODS

Eleven preterm lambs were instrumented to record respiration, ECG, oxygenation, and states of alertness. LCRs and ERs were induced during non-rapid eye movement sleep in a random order under these conditions: nCPAP 6 cmH2O, HFNC 7 L/min, high-flow nasal cannulas 7 L/min at a tracheal pressure of 6 cmH2O, and no respiratory support.

RESULTS

nCPAP 6 cmH2O decreased the cardiorespiratory inhibition induced with LCRs, but not with ERs in preterm lambs. This blunting effect was less marked with HFNC 7 L/min, even when the tracheal pressure was maintained at 6 cmH2O.

CONCLUSIONS

nCPAP might be a treatment for cardiorespiratory events related to LCRs in newborns, either in the context of laryngopharyngeal refluxes or swallowing immaturity. Our preclinical results merit to be confirmed through clinical studies.

IMPACT

Laryngeal chemoreflexes can be responsible for significant cardiorespiratory inhibition in newborns, especially preterm. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure at 6 cmH2O significantly decreased this cardiorespiratory inhibition. High-flow nasal cannulas at 7 L/min had a lesser effect than nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Esophageal stimulation was responsible for a smaller cardiorespiratory inhibition, which was not significantly modified by nasal continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal cannulas. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure should be tested for its beneficial effect on cardiorespiratory events related to laryngeal chemoreflexes in preterm newborns.

Diaphragmatic electromyography in infants: an overview of possible clinical applications

Preterm infants often experience breathing instability and a hampered lung function. Therefore, these infants receive cardiorespiratory monitoring and respiratory support. However, the current respiratory monitoring technique may be unreliable for especially obstructive apnea detection and classification and it does not provide insight in breathing effort. The latter makes the selection of the adequate mode and level of respiratory support difficult. Electromyography of the diaphragm (dEMG) has the potential of monitoring heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR), and it provides additional information on breathing effort. This review summarizes the available evidence on the clinical potential of dEMG to provide cardiorespiratory monitoring, to synchronize patient-ventilator interaction, and to optimize the mode and level of respiratory support in the individual newborn infant. We also try to identify gaps in knowledge and future developments needed to ensure widespread implementation in clinical practice. IMPACT: Preterm infants require cardiorespiratory monitoring and respiratory support due to breathing instability and a hampered lung function. The current respiratory monitoring technique may provide unreliable measurements and does not provide insight in breathing effort, which makes the selection of the optimal respiratory support settings difficult. Measuring diaphragm activity could improve cardiorespiratory monitoring by providing insight in breathing effort and could potentially have an important role in individualizing respiratory support in newborn infants.

Nasal high flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Nasal high flow (nHF) therapy provides heated, humidified air and oxygen via two small nasal prongs, at gas flows of more than 1 litre/minute (L/min), typically 2 L/min to 8 L/min. nHF is commonly used for non-invasive respiratory support in preterm neonates. It may be used in this population for primary respiratory support (avoiding, or prior to the use of mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube) for prophylaxis or treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). This is an update of a review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants compared to other forms of non-invasive respiratory support.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing nHF with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants born less than 37 weeks' gestation with respiratory distress soon after birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane Neonatal methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. death (before hospital discharge) or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), 2. death (before hospital discharge), 3. BPD, 4. treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry and 5. mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube within 72 hours of trial entry. Our secondary outcomes were 6. respiratory support, 7. complications and 8. neurosensory outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (2540 infants) in this updated review. There are nine studies awaiting classification and 13 ongoing studies. The included studies differed in the comparator treatment (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV)), the devices for delivering nHF and the gas flows used. Some studies allowed the use of 'rescue' CPAP in the event of nHF treatment failure, prior to any mechanical ventilation, and some allowed surfactant administration via the INSURE (INtubation, SURfactant, Extubation) technique without this being deemed treatment failure. The studies included very few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation. Several studies had unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. Nasal high flow compared with continuous positive airway pressure for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Eleven studies compared nHF with CPAP for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.60; risk difference (RD) 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 7 studies, 1830 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.39; 9 studies, 2009 infants; low-certainty evidence), or BPD (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.76; 8 studies, 1917 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.06; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 8 to 17; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, nHF likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in pneumothorax (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.08; 10 studies, 2094 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and nasal trauma (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.68; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; 7 studies, 1595 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Four studies compared nHF with NIPPV for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with NIPPV, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.37; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.04; 2 studies, 182 infants; very low-certainty evidence). nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.69; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05; 3 studies, 254 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the incidence of treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with NIPPV (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.79; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), or mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.33; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in nasal trauma, compared with NIPPV (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.47; RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.10; 3 studies, 272 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the rate of pneumothorax (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.53; 4 studies, 344 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with ambient oxygen We found no studies examining this comparison. Nasal high flow compared with low flow nasal cannulae We found no studies examining this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants of 28 weeks' gestation or greater may result in little to no difference in death or BPD, compared with CPAP or NIPPV. nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with CPAP; however, it likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation. Compared with CPAP, nHF use likely results in less nasal trauma and likely a reduction in pneumothorax. As few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation were enrolled in the included trials, evidence is lacking for the use of nHF for primary respiratory support in this population.

NIV-NAVA versus NCPAP immediately after birth in premature infants: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether noninvasive-neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) decrease respiratory efforts compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) during the first hours of life.

METHODS

Twenty infants born between 28⁺⁰ and 31⁺⁶ weeks were randomized to NIV-NAVA or NCPAP. Positive end-expiratory pressure was constantly kept at 6 cmH₂O for both groups and the NAVA level was 1.0 cmH₂O/µV for NIV-NAVA group. The electrical activity of diaphragm (Edi) were recorded for the first two hours.

RESULTS

Peak and minimum Edi decreased similarly in both groups (P = 0.98 and P = 0.59, respectively). Leakages were higher in the NIV-NAVA group than in the NCPAP group (P < 0.001). The neural apnea defined as a flat Edi for ≥ 5 s were less frequent in NIV-NAVA group than in NCPAP group (P = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediately applied NIV-NAVA in premature infants did not reduce breathing effort, measured as peak Edi. However, NIV-NAVA decreased neural apneic episodes compared to NCPAP.

Safety of Bottle-Feeding Under Nasal Respiratory Support in Preterm Lambs With and Without Tachypnoea

Aim: Convalescing preterm infants often require non-invasive respiratory support, such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal cannulas. One challenging milestone for preterm infants is achieving full oral feeding. Some teams fear nasal respiratory support might disrupt sucking–swallowing–breathing coordination and induce severe cardiorespiratory events. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety of oral feeding of preterm lambs on nasal respiratory support, with or without tachypnoea.

Methods: Sucking, swallowing and breathing functions, as well as electrocardiogram, oxygen haemoglobin saturation, arterial blood gases and videofluoroscopic swallowing study were recorded in 15 preterm lambs during bottle-feeding. Four randomly ordered conditions were studied: control, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (6 cmH₂O), high-flow nasal cannulas (7 L•min^–1), and high-flow nasal cannulas at 7 L•min^–1 at a tracheal pressure of 6 cmH₂O. The recordings were repeated on days 7–8 and 13–14 to assess the effect of maturation.

Results: None of the respiratory support impaired the safety or efficiency of oral feeding, even with tachypnoea. No respiratory support systematically impacted sucking–swallowing–breathing coordination, with or without tachypnoea. No effect of maturation was found.

Conclusion: This translational physiology study, uniquely conducted in a relevant animal model of preterm infant with respiratory impairment, shows that nasal respiratory support does not impact the safety or efficiency of bottle-feeding or sucking–swallowing–breathing coordination. These results suggest that clinical studies on bottle-feeding in preterm infants under nasal continuous positive airway pressure and/or high-flow nasal cannulas can be safely undertaken.

Eligibility Criteria and Representativeness of Randomized Clinical Trials That Include Infants Born Extremely Premature: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the eligibility criteria and trial characteristics among contemporary (2010-2019) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that included infants born extremely preterm (<28 weeks of gestation) and to evaluate whether eligibility criteria result in underrepresentation of high-risk subgroups (eg, infants born at <24 weeks of gestation).

STUDY DESIGN

PubMed and Scopus were searched January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, with no language restrictions. RCTs with mean or median gestational ages at birth of <28 weeks of gestation were included. The study followed the PRISMA guidelines; outcomes were registered prospectively. Data extraction was performed independently by multiple observers. Study quality was evaluated using a modified Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Among RCTs (n = 201), 32 552 infants were included. Study participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were highly variable. A total of 1603 eligibility criteria were identified; rationales were provided for 18.8% (n = 301) of criteria. Fifty-five RCTs (27.4%) included infants <24 weeks of gestation; 454 (1.4%) infants were identified as <24 weeks of gestation.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study identifies sources of variability across RCTs that included infants born extremely preterm and reinforces the critical need for consistent and transparent policies governing eligibility criteria.

Nasal respiratory support and tachypnea and oral feeding in full-term newborn lambs

Newborn infants with respiratory difficulties frequently require nasal respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC). Oral feeding of these infants under nasal respiratory support remains controversial out of fear of aspiration and cardiorespiratory events. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of oral feeding under different types of nasal respiratory support in newborn lambs without or with tachypnea. Eight lambs aged 4-5 days were instrumented to record sucking, swallowing, respiration, ECG, oxygen saturation, and arterial blood gases. Each lamb was given two bottles of 30 mL of milk with a pause of 30 s under videofluoroscopy in four conditions [no respiratory support, nCPAP 6 cmH₂O, HFNC 7 L/min, HFNC_CPAP (= HFNC 7 L/min + CPAP 6 cmH₂O)] administered in random order. The study was conducted in random order over 2 days, with or without standardized tachypnea induced by thoracic compression with a blood pressure cuff. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare the four nasal respiratory supports in terms of safety (cardiorespiratory events and aspiration), sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination, and efficacy of oral feeding. Results reveal that no nasal respiratory support impaired the safety of oral feeding. Most of the few laryngeal penetrations we observed occurred with HFNC_CPAP. Nasal CPAP modified sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination, whereas the efficiency of oral feeding decreased under HFNC_CPAP. Results were similar with or without tachypnea. In conclusion, oral feeding under nasal respiratory support is generally safe in a term lamb, even with tachypnea.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The practice of orally feeding newborns suffering from respiratory problems while on nCPAP or HFNC remains controversial for fear of triggering cardiorespiratory events or aspiration pneumonia, or aggravating chronic lung disease. The present results show that bottle-feeding is generally safe in full-term lambs under nasal respiratory support, both without and with tachypnea.

Diaphragmatic activity and neural breathing variability during a 5-min endotracheal continuous positive airway pressure trial in extremely preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Extremely preterm infants are often exposed to endotracheal tube continuous positive airway pressure (ETT-CPAP) trials to assess extubation readiness. The effects of ETT-CPAP trial on their diaphragmatic activity (Edi) and breathing variability is unknown.

METHODS

Prospective observational study enrolling infants with birth weight ≤1250 g undergoing their first extubation attempt. Diaphragmatic activity, expressed as the absolute minimum (Edi min) and maximum values (Edi max), area under the Edi signal, and breath-by-breath analyses for breath areas, amplitudes, widths, and neural inspiratory and expiratory times, were analyzed during mechanical ventilation (MV) and ETT-CPAP. Neural breathing variability of each of these parameters was also calculated and compared between MV and ETT-CPAP.

RESULTS

Thirteen infants with median (interquartile range) birth weight of 800 g [610-920] and gestational age of 25.4 weeks [24.4-26.3] were included. Diaphragmatic activity significantly increased during ETT-CPAP when compared to MV:Edi max (44.2 vs. 38.1 μV), breath area (449 vs. 312 μV·s), and amplitude (10.12 vs. 7.46 μV). Neural breathing variability during ETT-CPAP was characterized by increased variability for amplitude and area under the breath, and decreased for breath time and width.

CONCLUSIONS

A 5-min ETT-CPAP in extremely preterm infants undergoing extubation imposed significant respiratory load with changes in respiratory variability.

IMPACT

ETT-CPAP trials are often used to assess extubation readiness in extremely preterm infants, but its effects upon their respiratory system are not well known. Diaphragmatic activity analysis demonstrated that these infants are able to mount an important response to a short trial. A 5-min trial imposed a significant respiratory load evidenced by increased diaphragmatic activity and changes in breathing variability. Differences in breathing variability were observed between successful and failed extubations, which should be explored further in extubation readiness investigations. This type of trial cannot be recommended for preterm infants in clinical practice until clear standards and accuracy are established.

Practical aspects on the use of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants

Preterm infants frequently present with respiratory insufficiency requiring respiratory assistance. Invasive mechanical ventilation has been associated with several short and long term complications. Therefore, the practice of early use of non-invasive ventilation has been adopted. Nasal CPAP proved efficacy as an initial therapy for preterm infants. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation is an alternative used to mitigate CPAP failure in infants with apnea or increased work of breathing. High flow nasal cannula gained popularity primarily due to the ease of its use, despite multiple prominent trials that demonstrated its inferiority. Bi-level positive airway pressure and neurally adjusted non-invasive ventilatory are used in infants with apnea and increased work of breathing. The effectiveness of non invasive ventilation tools can be augmented by having a proper protocol for initiation, weaning, skin care, positioning, and developmental care during their application.

Nasal high-flow therapy decreased electrical activity of the diaphragm in preterm infants during the weaning phase

AIM

We evaluated whether nasal high-flow therapy was better than no respiratory support during the weaning phase in preterm infants.

METHODS

The study was conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit of the Turku University Hospital between September 2014 and August 2015. Preterm infants who were alternating between nasal high-flow therapy and unassisted breathing were enrolled. Electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) was recorded and compared during three-hour time periods for each option.

RESULTS

We studied eight infants at a median gestational age of 31 weeks. The EAdi peak was lower during nasal high-flow therapy when compared to no respiratory support (6.1 μV vs 7.1 μV, p = 0.02), but the EAdi minimum was similar with and without respiratory support. Neural respiratory rate (62 vs 68 per minute, p = 0.02) and the frequency of sighs (27.8 vs 37.9 per hour, p = 0.03) were lower during nasal high-flow therapy than no respiratory support.

CONCLUSION

Nasal high-flow therapy reduced diaphragm activation in our cohort when compared to no respiratory support, as indicated by the lower Edi peak. An increase in the respiratory rate and the sigh frequency without respiratory support also suggests that nasal high-flow therapy provided support during the weaning phase.

A randomised cross-over study showed no difference in diaphragm activity during weaning from respiratory support

AIM

We measured electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) to compare the breathing effort in preterm infants during weaning from respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) or nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP).

METHODS

This randomised cross-over study was carried out at St Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway, from December 2013 to June 2015. We gave 21 preterm infants weighing at least 1000 g HFNC 6 L/minute for four hours and nCPAP 3 cmH₂ O for four hours with a one-hour wash-out period. Measurements included diaphragmatic load, Edi, vital signs and a modified Silverman-Andersen Retraction Score.

RESULTS

We found no differences in HFNC and nCPAP in the median Edi peak (8.0 μV versus 7.8 μV, p = 0.095), median Edi min (1.1 μV versus 1.2 μV in, p = 0.958) or mean heart rate (157 versus 159, p = 0.300) in the 21 infants who took part. The mean respiratory rate was significantly lower during HFNC than nCPAP (47 versus 52, p = 0.012). The modified Silverman-Andersen Retraction Score showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

This study of preterm infants found no difference in the breathing effort measured by Edi between HFNC 6 L/minute and nCPAP 3 cmH₂ O. HFNC could replace nCPAP when preterm infants are ready for weaning.

Rapid respiratory transition at birth as evaluated by electrical activity of the diaphragm in very preterm infants supported by nasal CPAP

OBJECTIVE

To investigate breathing patterns during respiratory adaptation in preterm infants using the electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) signal.

PATIENTS

Infants born between 28 + 0 and 31 + 6 gestational weeks and supported by early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) were studied. The EAdi signal was recorded for 120 min after birth.

RESULTS

Eight preterm infants were evaluated. The median EAdi peak value of 19.2 μV (lower quartile 13.1; upper quartile 22.2) at 20 min after birth decreased to 11.4 μV (9.5-14.7) at 55 min of age. The median EAdi minimum value of 4.5 μV (2.2-5.5) at 25 min after birth decreased to 1.6 μV (1.2-2.7) at 85 min of age.

CONCLUSION

EAdi was high right after birth. This indicates that preterm infants are capable of generating sufficient respiratory drive and diaphragm tone during expiration to establish and maintain functional residual capacity. Diaphragm activity decreased within the first 90 min, suggesting that early adaptation was accomplished by 90 min of age.

Nasal high flow treatment in preterm infants

Nasal High Flow (HF) is a mode of ‘non-invasive’ respiratory support for preterm infants, with several potential modes of action, including generation of distending airway pressure, washout of the nasopharyngeal dead space, reduction of work of breathing, and heating and humidification of inspired gas. HF has several potential advantages over continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), the most commonly applied form of non-invasive support, such as reduced nasal trauma, ease of use, and infant comfort, which has led to its rapid adoption into neonatal care. In recent years, HF has become a well-established and commonly applied treatment in neonatal care.

Recent trials comparing HF and CPAP as primary support have had differing results. Meta-analyses suggest that primary HF results in an increased risk of treatment failure, but that ‘rescue’ CPAP use in those infants with HF failure results in no greater risk of mechanical ventilation. Even in studies with higher rates of HF failure, the majority of infants were successfully treated with HF, and rates of important neonatal morbidities did not differ between treatment groups. Importantly, these studies have included only infants born at ≥28 weeks’ gestational age (GA). The decision whether to apply primary HF will depend on the value placed on its advantages over CPAP by clinicians, the approach to surfactant treatment, and the severity of respiratory disease in the relevant population of preterm infants.

Post-extubation HF use results in similar rates of treatment failure, mechanical ventilation, and adverse events compared to CPAP. Post-extubation HF appears most suited to infants ≥28 weeks; there are few published data for infants below this gestation, and available evidence suggests that these infants are at high risk of HF failure, although rates of intubation and other morbidities are similar to those seen with CPAP. There is no evidence that using HF to ‘wean’ off CPAP allows for respiratory support to be ceased more quickly, but given its advantages it would appear to be a suitable alternative in infants who require ongoing non-invasive support. Safety data from randomised trials are reassuring, although more evidence in extremely preterm infants (<28 weeks’ GA) is required.

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist for Noninvasive Support in Neonates

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently used in the NICU to avoid intubation or as postextubation support for spontaneously breathing infants experiencing respiratory distress. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is used as a mode of noninvasive support in which both the timing and degree of ventilatory assist are controlled by the patient. NIV-NAVA has been successfully used clinically in neonates as a mode of ventilation to prevent intubation, allow early extubation, and as a novel way to deliver nasal continuous positive airway pressure.

Work of breathing during CPAP and heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with heated humidified, high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) in infants with evolving or established bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) reduced the work of breathing (WOB) and thoracoabdominal asynchrony (TAA) and improved oxygen saturation (SaO2).

DESIGN

Randomised crossover study.

SETTING

Tertiary neonatal unit.

PATIENTS

20 infants (median gestational age of 27.6 weeks (range 24.6-31.9 weeks)) were studied at a median postnatal age of 30.9 weeks (range 28.1-39.1 weeks).

INTERVENTIONS

Infants were studied on 2 consecutive days. On the first study day, they were randomised to either CPAP or HHFNC each for 2 h, the order being reversed on the second day.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The WOB was assessed by measuring the pressure time product of the diaphragm (PTPdi). PTPdi, TAA and SaO2 were assessed during the final 5 min of each 2 h period and the results on the two study days were meaned.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the results on CPAP versus HHFNC: mean PTPdi 226 (range 126-294) versus 224 cm H2O/s/min (95% CI for difference: -27 to 22; p=0.85) (range 170-318) (p=0.82), mean TAA 13.4° (range 4.51°-23.32°) versus 14.01° (range 4.25°-23.86°) (95% CI for difference: -3.9 to 2.8: p=0.73) (p=0.63) and mean SaO2 95% (range 93%-100%) versus 95% (94%-99%), (95% CI for difference -1.8 to 0.5; p=0.25) (p=0.45).

CONCLUSION

In infants with evolving or established BPD, CPAP compared with HHFNC offered no significant advantage with regard to the WOB, degree of asynchrony or oxygen saturation.

High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

High flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) are small, thin, tapered binasal tubes that deliver oxygen or blended oxygen/air at gas flows of more than 1 L/min. HFNC are increasingly being used as a form of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of HFNC with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 1 January 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 1 January 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 1 January 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing HFNC with other non-invasive forms of respiratory support in preterm infants immediately after birth or following extubation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors extracted and analysed data, and calculated risk ratio, risk difference and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 studies for inclusion in the review. The studies differed in the interventions compared (nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), non-humidified HFNC, models for delivering HFNC), the gas flows used and the indications for respiratory support (primary support from soon after birth, post-extubation support, weaning from CPAP support). When used as primary respiratory support after birth compared to CPAP (4 studies, 439 infants), there were no differences in the primary outcomes of death (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.73; 4 studies, 439 infants) or chronic lung disease (CLD) (typical RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.64; 4 studies, 439 infants). HFNC use resulted in longer duration of respiratory support, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes. One study (75 infants) showed no differences between HFNC and NIPPV as primary support. Following extubation (total 6 studies, 934 infants), there were no differences between HFNC and CPAP in the primary outcomes of death (typical RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 5 studies, 896 infants) or CLD (typical RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 5 studies, 893 infants). There was no difference in the rate of treatment failure (typical RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; 5 studies, 786 infants) or reintubation (typical RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 6 studies, 934 infants). Infants randomised to HFNC had reduced nasal trauma (typical RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79; typical risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.08; 4 studies, 645 infants). There was a small reduction in the rate of pneumothorax (typical RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.06; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00; 5 studies 896 infants) in infants treated with HFNC. Subgroup analysis found no difference in the rate of the primary outcomes between HFNC and CPAP in preterm infants in different gestational age subgroups, though there were only small numbers of extremely preterm and late preterm infants. One trial (28 infants) found similar rates of reintubation for humidified and non-humidified HFNC, and two other trials (100 infants) found no difference between different models of equipment used to deliver humidified HFNC. For infants weaning from non-invasive respiratory support (CPAP), two studies (149 infants) found that preterm infants randomised to HFNC had a reduced duration of hospitalisation compared with infants who remained on CPAP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HFNC has similar rates of efficacy to other forms of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants for preventing treatment failure, death and CLD. Most evidence is available for the use of HFNC as post-extubation support. Following extubation, HFNC is associated with less nasal trauma, and may be associated with reduced pneumothorax compared with nasal CPAP. Further adequately powered randomised controlled trials should be undertaken in preterm infants comparing HFNC with other forms of primary non-invasive support after birth and for weaning from non-invasive support. Further evidence is also required for evaluating the safety and efficacy of HFNC in extremely preterm and mildly preterm subgroups, and for comparing different HFNC devices.