Advantages and disadvantages of different nasal CPAP systems in newborns. A randomised control study comparing the Infant Flow Driver with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. Comparison of two nasal prongs for application of continuous positive airway pressure in neonates. A randomized, controlled trial comparing two different continuous positive airway pressure systems for the successful extubation of extremely low birth weight infants.
To compare three different systems of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): the naso-pharyngeal tube and two-prong systems in newborns, focusing on duration of CPAP, side effects and cost.
                Randomized clinical study.
                Between July 2000 and September 2001 newborns were randomized to three different CPAP systems. Forty infants in two weight groups (>2500 g and 1250-2500 g; 20 patients in each group) were included.
                In the group >2500 g the median duration of CPAP was 1.1 days (range 0.25-14.3 days). The median time on a naso-pharyngeal CPAP was 1 day (range 0.25-14.3 days), on Hudson prongs 1.6 days (range 0.5-3.3 days) and on the Infant Flow system 0.7 days (range 0.3-13.6 days; p>0.05 for comparison between groups, Fisher's exact test). With naso-pharyngeal CPAP, 2 patients developed moderate nasal injuries. On Hudson, 2 patients developed moderate and three mild nasal injuries. One patient on the Infant Flow showed mild and one moderate nasal injuries. In the weight group 1250-2500 g the median duration of CPAP was 1.1 days (range 0.1-7.0 days). The median time on the naso-pharyngeal tube was 0.9 days (range 0.1-7 days), on Hudson prongs 1.1 days (range 0.7-6.6 days) and on the Infant Flow system 1.3 days (range 0.25-5.9 days; p>0.05 for comparison between groups, Fisher's exact test). With a naso-pharyngeal tube, one infant developed mild and one moderate nasal injuries. On Hudson prongs, two had moderate nasal injuries. On Infant Flow, one newborn showed a severe nasal injury and two mild injuries. None of the patients developed a pneumothorax.
                The naso-pharyngeal tube is an easy, safe and economical CPAP system usable with every common ventilator. For very low birth weight newborns, a prong system may have advantages. To compare the effectiveness of the Infant Flow Driver (IFD) with single prong nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in preterm neonates affected by respiratory distress syndrome.
                Randomised controlled study.
                Between September 1997 and March 1999, 36 preterm infants who were eligible for CPAP treatment were randomly selected for either nCPAP or IFD and studied prospectively for changes in oxygen requirement and/or respiratory rate. The requirement for mechanical ventilation, complications of treatment, and effects on mid-term outcome were also evaluated.
                Use of the IFD had a significantly beneficial effect on both oxygen requirement and respiratory rate (p < 0.0001) when compared with nCPAP. Moreover, O(2) requirement and respiratory rate were significantly decreased by four hours (p < 0.001 and p < 0.03 respectively). The probability of remaining supplementary oxygen free over the first 48 hours of treatment was significantly higher in patients treated with the IFD than with nCPAP (p < 0.02). IFD treated patients had a higher success (weaning) rate (94% v 72 %) and shorter duration of treatment (49.3 (31) v 56 (29.7) hours respectively; mean (SD)), although the difference was not significant.
                IFD appears to be a feasible device for managing respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants, and benefits may be had with regard to oxygen requirement and respiratory rate when compared with nCPAP. The trend towards reduced requirement for mechanical ventilation, shorter clinical recovery time, and shorter duration of treatment requires further evaluation in a multicentre randomised clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: Few studies have compared the performance of nasal prongs used for applying continuous positive airway pressure. The present study compared the tolerance and efficacy with the Argyle and Hudson nasal prongs. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized clinical study. SETTING: A tertiary neonatal intensive care unit in a university hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 99 preterm infants weighing </=2500 g were assigned to one of three weight categories. They were then randomly assigned to use one of two nasal prong types. The number of times the prongs were out of the nostrils, time on nasal continuous positive airway pressure, respiratory and heart rate, Silverman-Andersen retraction score, blood gases, abdominal distention, nasal hyperemia and bleeding, septum necrosis, pneumothorax, and therapeutic success were documented. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The two groups were matched for weight, gestational age, and disease for which the continuous positive airway pressure was used. For patients weighing 1500-2000 g, the Hudson users had a greater gestational age. Both types of nasal prongs reduced the Silverman-Andersen retraction score in all infants 2 hrs after continuous positive airway pressure application, except for patients weighing </=1000 g. The Argyle prong was related to a higher frequency of hyperemia in babies weighing <1500 g (p =.03). There were no cases of septum necrosis or pneumothorax. The frequency of therapeutic success for patients using Hudson prongs and weighing >/=1500 g was significantly higher than for those using the Argyle catheter (p =.03). CONCLUSION: Considering the difference in gestational age for the patients weighing 1500-2500 g, we conclude that the two prongs tested are equally effective for nasal continuous positive airway pressure, but the Argyle prong is more difficult to keep in the nostrils of active patients, and nasal hyperemia, the first sign of tissue aggression, occurs more frequently among infants using this prong. To determine whether the use of the Infant Flow continuous positive airway pressure (IF CPAP) system reduces the rate of extubation failure among extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants (infants with birth weight <1000 g) when compared with conventional CPAP delivered with a conventional ventilator and nasal prongs.
                A prospective, unmasked, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in 162 eligible intubated ELBW infants who were hospitalized in 2 intensive care nurseries in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, between July 1997 and November 2000. Successful extubation was defined as no need for reintubation for any reason for at least 7 days after the first extubation attempt.
                The individual extubation success rates were 61.9% (52 of 84) in the conventional CPAP group and 61.5% (48 of 78) in the IF CPAP group. There were no significant differences in the extubation success rate in any birth weight subset between the 2 cohorts. The most common cause of extubation failure was apnea/bradycardia. Infants who were randomized to IF CPAP had fewer days on supplemental O(2) and shorter hospital stays.
                Extubation failure is a common problem, occurring in nearly 40% of ELBW infants who require mechanical ventilation. IF CPAP was as effective but no more effective than conventional CPAP in preventing extubation failure among ELBW infants. New strategies are needed to identify predictors of extubation success and to treat apnea/bradycardia, the most common cause of extubation failure, thereby reducing the likelihood of prolonged intubation in this high-risk cohort of premature infants.
Short binasal prong devices are more effective than single prongs in reducing the rate of re-intubation. Although the Infant Flow Driver appears more effective than Medicorp prongs the most effective short binasal prong device remains to be determined. The improvement in respiratory parameters with short binasal prongs suggests they are more effective than nasopharyngeal CPAP in the treatment of early RDS. Further studies incorporating longer-term outcomes are required. Studies are also needed to determine the optimal pressure source for the delivery of NCPAP.