Non-invasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation for primary respiratory support in extremely preterm infants: multicentre randomised controlled trial

The BMJ Pub Date : 2025-10-06 DOI:10.1136/bmj-2025-085569
Yang Li, Xingwang Zhu, Ling-Jun Li, Long Chen, Qian Yang, Liping Xu, Wuhua Liang, Xinzhu Lin, Chuanfeng Li, Jiang Xue, Ling Liu, Xinnian Pan, Rong Ju, Xianglian Peng, Wenyan Tang, Yuan Shi
{"title":"Non-invasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation for primary respiratory support in extremely preterm infants: multicentre randomised controlled trial","authors":"Yang Li, Xingwang Zhu, Ling-Jun Li, Long Chen, Qian Yang, Liping Xu, Wuhua Liang, Xinzhu Lin, Chuanfeng Li, Jiang Xue, Ling Liu, Xinnian Pan, Rong Ju, Xianglian Peng, Wenyan Tang, Yuan Shi","doi":"10.1136/bmj-2025-085569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To test the hypothesis that non-invasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) is more efficacious than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation as primary respiratory support for extremely preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Design A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting Twenty tertiary neonatal intensive care units in China. Participants 342 extremely preterm infants (gestational age between 24 weeks +0 day and 28 weeks +6 days) with respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled in the study between August 2022 and August 2024. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to receive NCPAP or NHFOV as primary respiratory support for respiratory distress syndrome. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation within 72 hours after birth. Results Treatment failure within 72 hours occurred in 27 of` 170 infants (15.9%) in the NHFOV group and 48 of 172 infants (27.9%) in the NCPAP group (risk difference −12.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval −20.7 to −3.4; P=0.007). Treatment failure within seven days was also lower in the NHFOV group (−12.5 percentage points, 95% confidence interval −21.9 to −3.2; P=0.008) compared with the NCPAP group. All observed associations remained significant after sensitivity analysis including study sites and antenatal steroid use. No significant differences were found in any other secondary outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions NHFOV appeared superior to NCPAP in reducing the need for intubation when used as a primary respiratory support strategy in extremely preterm infants. Both techniques did not show significant differences in neonatal adverse events. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT05141435][1] The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplemental files. The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at <https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/66gc4zb37c/1> or Zhu, Xingwang (2025) “NHFOV as Primary Support in Very Preterm Infants With RDS,” Mendeley Data, V1, doi:[10.17632/66gc4zb37c.1][2]. If problems occur accessing the data, please contact the corresponding author. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT05141435&atom=%2Fbmj%2F391%2Fbmj-2025-085569.atom [2]: /lookup/doi/10.17632/66gc4zb37c.1","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-085569","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To test the hypothesis that non-invasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) is more efficacious than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation as primary respiratory support for extremely preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Design A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting Twenty tertiary neonatal intensive care units in China. Participants 342 extremely preterm infants (gestational age between 24 weeks +0 day and 28 weeks +6 days) with respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled in the study between August 2022 and August 2024. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to receive NCPAP or NHFOV as primary respiratory support for respiratory distress syndrome. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation within 72 hours after birth. Results Treatment failure within 72 hours occurred in 27 of` 170 infants (15.9%) in the NHFOV group and 48 of 172 infants (27.9%) in the NCPAP group (risk difference −12.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval −20.7 to −3.4; P=0.007). Treatment failure within seven days was also lower in the NHFOV group (−12.5 percentage points, 95% confidence interval −21.9 to −3.2; P=0.008) compared with the NCPAP group. All observed associations remained significant after sensitivity analysis including study sites and antenatal steroid use. No significant differences were found in any other secondary outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions NHFOV appeared superior to NCPAP in reducing the need for intubation when used as a primary respiratory support strategy in extremely preterm infants. Both techniques did not show significant differences in neonatal adverse events. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT05141435][1] The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplemental files. The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at or Zhu, Xingwang (2025) “NHFOV as Primary Support in Very Preterm Infants With RDS,” Mendeley Data, V1, doi:[10.17632/66gc4zb37c.1][2]. If problems occur accessing the data, please contact the corresponding author. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT05141435&atom=%2Fbmj%2F391%2Fbmj-2025-085569.atom [2]: /lookup/doi/10.17632/66gc4zb37c.1
无创高频振荡通气对极早产儿初级呼吸支持:多中心随机对照试验
目的探讨无创高频振荡通气(NHFOV)比鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)更有效地减少有创机械通气作为极早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的主要呼吸支持。设计一项多中心随机对照试验。中国共有20个新生儿三级重症监护病房。研究人员在2022年8月至2024年8月期间招募了342名患有呼吸窘迫综合征的极早产儿(胎龄在24周+0天至28周+6天之间)。干预措施参与者被随机分配接受NCPAP或NHFOV作为呼吸窘迫综合征的主要呼吸支持。主要结局指标主要结局指标为治疗失败,定义为出生后72小时内需要有创机械通气。结果NHFOV组170例患儿中有27例(15.9%)在72小时内治疗失败,NCPAP组172例患儿中有48例(27.9%)在72小时内治疗失败(风险差异为- 12.0个百分点,95%可信区间为- 20.7 ~ - 3.4;P=0.007)。与NCPAP组相比,NHFOV组7天内的治疗失败率也较低(- 12.5个百分点,95%可信区间为- 21.9至- 3.2;P=0.008)。在包括研究地点和产前类固醇使用在内的敏感性分析后,所有观察到的关联仍然显著。两组间其他次要结果均无显著差异。结论:NHFOV作为极早产儿的主要呼吸支持策略,在减少插管需求方面优于NCPAP。两种技术在新生儿不良事件方面均无显著差异。试验注册ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT05141435][1]用于分析论文数据的代码可在补充文件中找到。本文研究结果的数据是公开的,可以在or Zhu, Xingwang(2025)“NHFOV作为RDS的主要支持”Mendeley data, V1, doi:[10.17632/66gc4zb37c.1][2]中找到。如果在访问数据时出现问题,请联系通讯作者。[1]: /查找/ external-ref ? link_type = CLINTRIALGOV&access_num = NCT05141435&atom = % 2 fbmj % 2 f391 % 2 fbmj - 2025 - 085569。Atom [2]: /lookup/doi/10.17632/66gc4zb37c.1
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信