Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation offers no advantages over nasal continuous positive airway pressure in apnea of prematurity. Efficacy of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in treating apnea of prematurity.
A prospective, randomized, cross-over trial was performed to compare the efficacy of nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in infants of less than 32 weeks of gestation. Continuous positive airway pressure was delivered at end-expiratory pressures of 4 cm H2O, while peak pressures of 20 cm H2O and end-expiratory pressures of 4 cm H2O were used during nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation at ventilatory rates of 20 breaths per minute. The frequency and extent of apnea and bradycardia during a 6-hour period in a patient receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure were compared with a similar crossover period of nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Although the infants had slightly less frequent episodes of apnea per hour (0.6 +/- 0.7 vs 0.5 +/- 0.7) and bradycardia per hour (1.2 +/- 1.3 vs 0.9 +/- 1.0) during nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, these differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in the severity of these events as assessed by the duration and fall in transcutaneous oxygen pressure during apnea and heart rate during bradycardia. There were no significant changes in blood gases throughout the study. Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation appears to have no advantages over nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preventing apnea and does not alter gas exchange in infants of less than 32 weeks of gestation. The efficacy of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in treating apnea of prematurity was evaluated. Apneic preterm infants were randomly assigned to receive either NIPPV or continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for 4 hr when they failed to respond to conservative therapy. The amount of reduction in apneic spells and bradycardia in the two groups after treatment was compared. Thirty-four infants (18 with NIPPV, 16 with NCPAP) were enrolled. Their birth weights ranged from 590-1,880 g (mean, 1,021 g) and gestational ages from 25-32 weeks (mean, 27.6 weeks). The baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups. Frequency of apnea and bradycardia was reduced during both forms of treatments. However, the infants receiving NIPPV had a greater reduction of apneic spells (P = 0.02) and a tendency to greater decrease in bradycardia (P = 0.09) than those receiving NCPAP. We conclude that NIPPV is more effective than NCPAP in reducing apnea in preterm infants. NIPPV may reduce bradycardia; however, this needs to be validated by a larger number of observations.
Implications for practice: NIPPV may be a useful method of augmenting the beneficial effects of NCPAP in preterm infants with apnea that is frequent or severe. Its use appears to reduce the frequency of apneas more effectively than NCPAP. Additional safety and efficacy data are required before recommending NIPPV as standard therapy for apnea.
Implications for research: Future trials with sufficient power should assess the efficacy (reduction in failure of therapy) and safety (GI complications) of NIPPV. Outcomes should be assessed throughout the entire period during which the infant requires assisted ventilation. The recent ability to synchronise NIPPV with an infant's spontaneous respirations is a promising development requiring further assessment.