Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Tidal volume delivery during nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation: infant cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure prongs |
Lynch AL, Matlock DN, Akmyradov C, Weisner MD, Beck J, Sinderby C, Courtney SE |
Journal of Perinatology 2024 Feb;44(2):244-249 |
clinical trial |
3/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To measure tidal volume delivery during nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation with two nasal interfaces: infant cannula and nasal prongs. STUDY DESIGN: A single-center crossover study of neonates with mild respiratory distress. Fifteen preterm neonates were randomized to initial interface of infant cannula or nasal prongs and monitored on a sequence of pressure settings first on the initial interface, then repeated on the alternate interface. We compared relative tidal volumes between the two interfaces with two-way repeated measures ANOVA during three breath types: synchronized (I), patient effort without ventilator breaths (II), and ventilator breaths without patient effort (III). Clinical trial #NCT04326270. RESULTS: Type III breaths delivered no significant tidal volume. No significant difference was measured in relative tidal volume delivery between the interfaces when breath types were matched. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation delivers neither clinically nor statistically significant tidal volume with either infant cannula or nasal prongs.
|