高流量鼻插管作为晚期早产儿主要呼吸支持的评价

A. Badib, Magdy El-Din, A. A. Hamed, Hassan Hassan
{"title":"高流量鼻插管作为晚期早产儿主要呼吸支持的评价","authors":"A. Badib, Magdy El-Din, A. A. Hamed, Hassan Hassan","doi":"10.4103/ajop.ajop_44_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is commonly used as a noninvasive mode of respiratory support in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The safety and efficacy of HHHFNC have not been compared with other modes of noninvasive support in large randomized trials. Aim The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as a primary mode for noninvasive respiratory support in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Patients and methods This prospective comparative study was conducted on 100 late preterm neonates with gestational age 34–37 weeks with respiratory distress developed within 6 h of age. Patients were categorized into two groups: 50 received NCPAP and 50 received HHHFNC as a primary mode of respiratory support. The primary outcome was requirement for mechanical ventilation within 72 h of age. Secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation beyond 72 h of age, occurrence of complications including nasal trauma, effect on feeding, and length of hospital stay. Results There was no difference in early failure for HHHFNC [1/50 (2.0%)] versus NCPAP [7/50 (14.0%); P=0.059], subsequent need for any intubation [6/50 vs. 8/50 (16%); P=0.564], or in any of several adverse outcomes analyzed, including air leak. NCPAP group had more cases that developed nasal trauma [18/50 (36.0%) vs. HHHFNC 0/50 (0.0%)]. No difference was found between both groups regarding the duration of hospital stay. Conclusion Among infants 34–37 weeks of gestational age, HHHFNC appears to have similar efficacy and safety to NCPAP when applied as a primary mode of respiratory support.","PeriodicalId":7866,"journal":{"name":"Alexandria Journal of Pediatrics","volume":"91 1","pages":"152 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the use of high-flow nasal cannula as primary respiratory support in late preterms\",\"authors\":\"A. Badib, Magdy El-Din, A. A. Hamed, Hassan Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ajop.ajop_44_20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is commonly used as a noninvasive mode of respiratory support in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The safety and efficacy of HHHFNC have not been compared with other modes of noninvasive support in large randomized trials. Aim The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as a primary mode for noninvasive respiratory support in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Patients and methods This prospective comparative study was conducted on 100 late preterm neonates with gestational age 34–37 weeks with respiratory distress developed within 6 h of age. Patients were categorized into two groups: 50 received NCPAP and 50 received HHHFNC as a primary mode of respiratory support. The primary outcome was requirement for mechanical ventilation within 72 h of age. Secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation beyond 72 h of age, occurrence of complications including nasal trauma, effect on feeding, and length of hospital stay. Results There was no difference in early failure for HHHFNC [1/50 (2.0%)] versus NCPAP [7/50 (14.0%); P=0.059], subsequent need for any intubation [6/50 vs. 8/50 (16%); P=0.564], or in any of several adverse outcomes analyzed, including air leak. NCPAP group had more cases that developed nasal trauma [18/50 (36.0%) vs. HHHFNC 0/50 (0.0%)]. No difference was found between both groups regarding the duration of hospital stay. Conclusion Among infants 34–37 weeks of gestational age, HHHFNC appears to have similar efficacy and safety to NCPAP when applied as a primary mode of respiratory support.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alexandria Journal of Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\"91 1\",\"pages\":\"152 - 158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alexandria Journal of Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ajop.ajop_44_20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alexandria Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ajop.ajop_44_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的加热加湿高流量鼻插管(HHHFNC)是新生儿重症监护病房常用的一种无创呼吸支持方式。在大型随机试验中,HHHFNC的安全性和有效性尚未与其他无创支持方式进行比较。目的:比较HHHFNC与鼻腔持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)作为新生儿重症监护病房无创呼吸支持的主要模式的有效性和安全性。患者与方法本研究对100例胎龄34 ~ 37周、出生后6小时内出现呼吸窘迫的晚期早产儿进行前瞻性比较研究。患者分为两组:50例接受NCPAP, 50例接受HHHFNC作为主要呼吸支持模式。主要终点是72h内需要机械通气。次要结局包括超过72小时的机械通气需求、鼻外伤等并发症的发生、对喂养的影响以及住院时间。结果HHHFNC与NCPAP的早期失败率无差异[1/50(2.0%)]与[7/50 (14.0%)];P=0.059],随后需要任何插管[6/50比8/50 (16%);P=0.564],或分析的任何不良后果,包括空气泄漏。NCPAP组鼻外伤发生率更高[18/50 (36.0%)vs HHHFNC组0/50(0.0%)]。两组在住院时间方面没有差异。结论在34-37孕周的婴儿中,HHHFNC作为主要呼吸支持方式与NCPAP具有相似的疗效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the use of high-flow nasal cannula as primary respiratory support in late preterms
Objective Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is commonly used as a noninvasive mode of respiratory support in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The safety and efficacy of HHHFNC have not been compared with other modes of noninvasive support in large randomized trials. Aim The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as a primary mode for noninvasive respiratory support in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Patients and methods This prospective comparative study was conducted on 100 late preterm neonates with gestational age 34–37 weeks with respiratory distress developed within 6 h of age. Patients were categorized into two groups: 50 received NCPAP and 50 received HHHFNC as a primary mode of respiratory support. The primary outcome was requirement for mechanical ventilation within 72 h of age. Secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation beyond 72 h of age, occurrence of complications including nasal trauma, effect on feeding, and length of hospital stay. Results There was no difference in early failure for HHHFNC [1/50 (2.0%)] versus NCPAP [7/50 (14.0%); P=0.059], subsequent need for any intubation [6/50 vs. 8/50 (16%); P=0.564], or in any of several adverse outcomes analyzed, including air leak. NCPAP group had more cases that developed nasal trauma [18/50 (36.0%) vs. HHHFNC 0/50 (0.0%)]. No difference was found between both groups regarding the duration of hospital stay. Conclusion Among infants 34–37 weeks of gestational age, HHHFNC appears to have similar efficacy and safety to NCPAP when applied as a primary mode of respiratory support.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信