Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Compare the Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure with Two Different Methods to Treat Premature Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors
Majid Mohammadizadeh 1
Ali Reza Asadi 2
Ali Reza Sadeghnia 1
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Child Health Promotion Research Center, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Resident of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Child Health Promotion Research Center, School of Medicine And Student Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Background: Various continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices have been used in treatment of neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). This study was designed to compare the efficacy of bubble CPAP versus medijet CPAP, used along with surfactant, to treat RDS during the first hours of life.Methods: Eighty-eight neonates with gestational age between 29 to 336/7 weeks who had clinical manifestations of RDS and required FIO2 > 21% were randomly assigned to receive either bubble CPAP or medijet CPAP (44 in each group). During the first 30 to 60 minutes of life, if CPAP rises to 8 cm H2O and FIO2 requirement exceeds 40%, surfactant was administered via endotracheal tube. The procedure was repeated twice more at 12 hour intervals, if CPAP treatment had to be continued with FIO2 > 30%. Mechanical ventilation was considered in the presence of clinical or laboratory evidence of respiratory failure. Duration of CPAP treatment and oxygen therapy, need for second and third doses of surfactant and mechanical ventilation, and the occurrence of chronic lung disease (CLD) and pneumothorax were compared between groups.Findings: There was no significant difference in the duration of CPAP treatment and oxygen therapy between bubble CPAP and medijet CPAP groups (47 ± 25.7 vs. 46.7 ± 22.4 [P = 0.874] and 158.7 ± 191.9 vs. 144 ± 165.9 [P = 0.702], respectively). The need for second and third doses of surfactant and mechanical ventilation, and the occurrence of CLD and pneumothorax were not significantly different between groups (P was 1, 0.361, 1, 0.72 and 1, respectively).  Conclusion: Considering the limited available data, it is highly recommended to evaluate the similar efficacy of bubble CPAP and medijet CPAP in treatment of RDS, along with the use of surfactant, in other large clinical trials. 
Keywords
Respiratory distress syndrome
Neonates
Bubble CPAP
Medijet CPAP
  1. Rojas MA, Lozano JM, Rojas MX, Laughon M, Bose CL, Rondon MA, et al. Very early surfactant without mandatory ventilation in premature infants treated with early continuous positive airway pressure: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatrics 2009; 123(1): 137-42
  2. Lipsten E, Aghai ZH, Pyson KH, Saslow JG, Nakhla T, Long J, et al. Work of breathing during nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: A comparison of bubble vs variable-flow devices. J Perinatol 2005; 25(7): 453-8.
  3. Ho JJ, Henderson-Smart DJ, Davis PG. Early versus delayed initiation of continuous distending pressure for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Cochrane DatabseSyst Rev. 2002; (2): CD002975.
  4. Engle WA, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Pediatrics 2008; 121(2): 419-32.
  5. Campbell DM, Shah PS, Shah V, Kelly EN. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure from high flow nasal cannula versus Infant Flow for preterm infants. J Perinator 2006; 26(9): 546-9
  6. Stevens TP, Blennow M, Myers EH, Soll R. Early surfactant administration with brief ventilation vs. selective surfactant and continued mechanical ventilation for preterm infants with or at risk for respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Review. 2007; 17(4): CD003063.
  7. Bohlin K, Jonsson B, Gustafsson A, Blennow M. Continuous positive airway pressure and surfactant. Neonatology 2008; 93(4): 309-15.
  8. Smith J. Non-invasive breathing assistance for newborn infants with respiratory distress. South African Journal of Child Health 2008; 2(4): 140
  9. Mahmoud RA, Roehr CC, Schmalisch G. Current methods of non-invasive ventilator support for neonates. Pediatr Respir Rev 2011; 12(3): 196-205.
  10. Stefanescu BM, Murphy WP, Hansell BJ, Fuloria M, Morgan TM, Aschner MM. A randomized controlled trial comparing two different continuous positive airway pressure systems for the successful extubation of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2003; 112(5): 1031-38.
  11. Pandit PB, Courtney SE, Pyon KH, Saslow JG, Habib RH. Work of breathing during constant- and variable – flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2001; 108(3): 682-5.
  12. Ahluwalia JS, White Dk, Morley CJ. Infant Flow Driver or single prong nasal continuous positive airway pressure: short-term physiological effects. ActaPaediatr 1998; 87(3): 325-7.
  13. Mazella M, Bellini C, Calevo MG, Campone F, Massocco D, Mezzano P, et al. A randomized control study comparing the Infant Flow Driver with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001; 85(2): F86-90.
  14. Gupta S, Sinha SK, Tin W, Donn SM. A randomized controlled trial of post-extubation bubble continuous positive airway pressure versus Infant Flow Driver continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. J Pediatr 2009; 154(5): 645-50.
  15. Wald M, Kribs A, Jeitler V, Lirsch D, Pollak A, Kirchner L. Variety of expiratory resistance between different continuous positive airway pressure devices for preterm infants. Artif Organs 2011; 35(1): 22-8.
  16. Pillow JJ, Hillman N, Moss TJM, Polglase G, Bold G, Beaumont C, et al. Bubble continuous positive airway pressure enhances lung volume and gas exchange in preterm lambs. Am J Respire Crit Care Med 2007; 176(1): 63-9.
  17. Lee KS, Dunn MS, Fenwick M, Shennan AT. A comparison of underwater bubble continuous positive airway pressure with ventilator-derived continuous positive airway pressure in premature neonates ready for extubation. Biol Neonate 1998; 73(2): 69-75.
  18. Pillow JJ, Travadi JN. Bubble CPAP: Is the noise important? An In Vitro study. Pediatr Res 2005; 57(6): 826-830.
  19. Kahn DJ, Courtney SE, Steele AM, Habib RH. Unpredictability of delivered bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure: Role of bias flow magnitude and nares-prong airleaks. Pediatr Res 2007; 62(3): 343-7.
  20. Morley CJ, Lau R, De Paoli A, Davis PG. Nasal Continuous positive airway pressure: Does bubbling improve gas exchange? Arch Dis child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90(4): F343-4.
  21. Deo Paoli AG, Davis PG, Faber B, Morley CS. Devices and pressure sources for administration of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 23(1): CD002977.
  22. Bohlin K, Gudmundsdottir T, Katz-salamon M, Jonsson B, Blennow M. Implementation of surfactant treatment during continuous positive airway pressure. J Perinatol 2007; 27(7): 422-7.
  23. Wiswell TE, Srinivasan L. Continuous positive airway pressure. In: Goldsmith JP, Karotkin EH. Assited Ventilation of the Neonate. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003. p. 127-47.
  24. Khalaf MN, Brodsky N, Hurley J, Bhandari V. A prospective randomized, controlled trial comparing synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as modes of extubation. Pediatrics 2001; 108(1): 13-7.
  25. Deorari A, Kumar P, Murki S. Workbook on CPAP Science, Evidence and Practice. New Delhi: All India Institue of Medical Sciences and Ghandigarh: Post Graduate Institue of Medical Education Research; 2010. p. 6-9.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 29, Issue 146 - Serial Number 146
May and June 2011
Pages 901-911

  • Receive Date 08 July 2011
  • Accept Date 06 April 2022