Bi-level Nasal Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Preterm Infants with Birth Weight Less Than 1500 g and Respiratory Distress Syndrome Following INSURE Treatment: A Two-center Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

The present study aimed to examine the effectiveness of bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preterm infants with birth weight less than 1500 g and respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) following intubation-surfactant-extubation (INSURE) treatment. A two-center randomized control trial was performed. The primary outcome was the reintubation rate of infants within 72 h of age after INSURE. Secondary outcomes included bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and incidences of adverse events. Lung function at one year of corrected age was also compared between the two groups. There were 140 cases in the CPAP group and 144 in the BiPAP group. After INSURE, the reintubation rates of infants within 72 h of age were 15% and 11.1% in the CPAP group and the BiPAP group, respectively (P>0.05). Neonates in the BiPAP group was on positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy three days less than in the CPAP group (12.6 d and 15.3 d, respectively, P<0.05), and on oxygen six days less than in the CPAP group (20.6 d and 26.9 d, respectively, P<0.05). Other outcomes such as BPD, NEC, ROP and feeding intolerance were not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no difference in lung function at one year of age between the two groups (P>0.05). In conclusion, after INSURE, the reintubation rate of infants within 72 h of age was comparable between the BiPAP group and the CPAP group. BiPAP was superior to CPAP in terms of shorter durations (days) on PAP support and oxygen supplementation. There were no differences in the incidences of BPD and ROP, and lung function at one year of age between the two ventilation methods.

References

[1] LemonsJA, BauerCR, OhW, et al.. Very low birth weight outcomes of the National Institute of Child health and human development neonatal research network, January 1995 through December 1996. NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics, 2001, 107(1): E1

[2] AttarMA, DonnSM. Mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury in premature infants. Semin Neonatol, 2002, 7(5): 353-360

[3] PolinRA, SahniR. Newer experience with CPAP. Semin Neonatol, 2002, 7(5): 379-389

[4] DaniC, BertiniG, PezzatiM, et al.. Early extubation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome among preterm infants <30 weeks’ gestation. Pediatrics, 2004, 13(6): 560-563

[5] DaniC, CorsiniI, BertiniG, et al.. Effect of multiple INSURE procedures in extremely preterm infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2011, 24(12): 1427-1431

[6] O’BrienK, CampbellC, BrownL, et al.. Infant flow biphasic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BP- NCPAP) vs. infant flow NCPAP for the facilitation of extubation in infants’ ≤ 1,250 grams: a randomized controlled trial. BMC pediatr, 2012, 12: 43

[7] RicottiA, SalvoV, ZimmermannLJ, et al.. N-SIPPV versus bi-level N-CPAP for early treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2013, 26(13): 1346-1351

[8] Sai Sunil KishoreM, DuttaS, KumarP. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Paediatr, 2009, 98(9): 1412-1415

[9] ShiY, TangS, ZhaoJ, et al.. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of NIPPV versus nCPAP in preterm and term infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2014, 49(7): 673-678

[10] KhalafMN, BrodskyN, HurleyJ, et al.. 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): 13-17

[11] ListaG, CastoldiF, FontanaP, et al.. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised control trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Edition, 2010, 95(2): 85-89

[12] RongZH, LiWB, LiuW, et al.. Nasal bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preterm infants ≤ 32 weeks: A retrospective cohort study. J Paediatr Child Health, 2016, 52(5): 493-498

[13] Collaborative Study Group for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia of Prematurity in China. Incidence and risk factors of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in premature infants in 10 hospitals in China. Zhonghua Er ke Za zhi (Chinese), 2011, 49(9): 655-662

[14] MorettiC, GizziC, MontecchiaF, et al.. Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation of the Newborn: Technical Issues and Clinical Results. Neonatology, 2016, 109(4): 359-365

[15] SweetDG, CarnielliV, GreisenG, et al.. European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome — 2019 Update. Neonatology, 2019, 115(4): 432-450

[16] ChenL, WangL, MaJ, et al.. Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation in Preterm Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome and ARDS After Extubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Chest, 2019, 155(4): 740-748

[17] KlotzD, SchneiderH, SchumannS, et al.. Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterm infants: a randomised controlled cross-over trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2018, 103(4): 1-5

[18] DingF, ZhangJ, ZhangW, et al.. Clinical Study of Different Modes of Non-invasive Ventilation Treatment in Preterm Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome After Extubation. Front pediatr, 2020, 8: 63

[19] LatremouilleS, Al-JabriA, LamerP, et al.. Heart Rate Variability in Extremely Preterm Infants Receiving Nasal CPAP and Non-Synchronized Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately After Extubation. Respir Care, 2018, 63(1): 62-69

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Huazhong University of Science and Technology