Azcárraga-de Lara CR, Fernández-Carrocera LA, Yllescas-Medrano E

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 222-228
PDF size: 258.83 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the nasal continuous positive airway pressure and nasopharyngeal ventilation. Methods: Randomized clinical trial that included all infants admitted at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the INPer, who had respiratory distress and required ventilatory support. In total were included 28 neonates, divided into two groups, the first with 12 patients with nasopharyngeal ventilation, and the second with 16 neonates in nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Inclusion criteria: Infants with respiratory distress and respiratory automatism that required ventilatory support. Exclusion criteria: Nasal pathology, major congenital malformations, neuromuscular disorder, air leak syndrome, previous abdominal surgery or intestinal disease. Study variables: gestational age, weight, days of life, underlying disease, prior ventilatory support method of ventilation, days of application, indications, complications, rate of success. We used descriptive statistics and for comparison of the groups χ² or Mann-Whitney U. Results: The group with nasopharyngeal ventilation had nine preterm hypotrophic neonates; the group in nasal continuous positive airway pressure had six preterm hypotrophic neonates. At the moment of admission to the study all the neonates were in phase I of ventilation. The predominant indication of ventilation at the nasopharyngeal ventilation group was apnea, and respiratory distress for nasal continuous positive airway pressure group. Nasopharyngeal ventilation failed in five patients (41.6%) and three (18.7%) in nasal continuous positive airway pressure group, without statistical difference.

REFERENCES

1. Thomson MA. Early nasal continuous positive airway pressure to minimize the need for endotracheal intubation and ventilation. Neoreviews. 2005; 6: e184-8.

2. Colin M, Peter D. Continuous positive airway pressure. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2004; 16: 141-5.

3. Davis PG, Lemyre B, de Paoli AG. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1: 2005.

4. De Paoli AG, Davis PG, Faber B, Morley CJ. Devices and pressure sources for administration of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm neonates (Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4: 2008.

5. Rego M, Martínez F. Comparison of two nasal prongs for application of continuous positive airway pressure in neonates. Pediat Crit Care Med. 2002; 3: 239-43.

6. Muneyuki T, Purris W. Continuous positive airway pressure in new-generation mechanical ventilators. Anesthesiology. 2002; 96: 1-21.

7. Millar D, Kirpalani H. Benefits of non invasive ventilation. Indian Pediat. 2004; 41: 1008-17.

8. Auld PA. Fisiología pulmonar del recién nacido. En: Scarpelli EM, Auld PA, eds. Barcelona: Ediciones Españolas; 1989. pp. 145-69.

9. Reporte estadístico anual. Departamento de estadística e informática. Instituto Nacional de Perinatología, 2004.

10. Lindner W, Vobbeck S, Hummler H, Pohlandt F. Delivery room management of extremely low birth weigth infants: spontaneous breathing or intubation? Pediatrics. 1999; 103: 961-7.

11. Aly H. Nasal prongs continuous positive airway pressure: a simple yet powerful tool. Pediatrics. 2001; 108: 759-61.

12. Czerivsnske M. Aplication of continuos positive airway pressure to neonate via nasal prongs, nasopharyngeal tube or nasal mask. Respir Care. 1994; 39: 817-23.

13. Rivera N. Optimizar uso del CPAP. Sección Neonatología. Rev Nef Científica. 2009; 1: 10-19.

14. Wilson A, Gardner MN, Armstrong MA, Folck BF, Gabriel J, Escobar GJ. Neonatal assisted ventilation: predictors, frequency, and duration in a mature manager care organization. Pediatrics. 2000; 105: 822-30.