[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main Online Submission Archive Current Issue In Press ::
:: Volume 16, Issue 11 (Clinical Science Issue - November 2014) ::
ZJRMS 2014, 16(11): 9-14 Back to browse issues page
Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress
Bahareh Bahman-Bijari , Reza Mahdian , Pedram Niknafs , Mohammad Reza Baneshi
Department of Pediatrics, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran , reza.mj98@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (4066 Views)
Background : The trend today is to minimize the use of mechanical ventilation. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are 2 non-invasive treatments for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). There is little study in literature comparing early use of NIPPV with NCPAP as primary modes of respiratory support. The aim of this study is to determine whether NIPPV and NCPAP would have different survival rates and possible complications.
Materials and Methods : In this prospective clinical trial study, 120 preterm neonates (gestational age 28-36 weeks) who were admitted due to respiratory distress between January and May 2012 in the neonatal intensive care unit of Afzalipour hospital. Sixty infants were randomized to NCPAP and comparable infants to NIPPV (birth weight 1807.05±52 vs. 1882.50±56 g, gestational age 32.05±2.94 vs. 32.16±2.08 weeks, respectively). Patients were randomly allocated into 2 treatment groups using minimization technique. One group was treated by NCPAP and the second one treated by NIPPV. Survival analysis was applied to estimate and compare survival rates.
Results : Infants treated initially with NIPPV needed less endotracheal ventilation than infants treated with NCPAP (13.3 % vs. 41.7 %, p=0.001). Estimated survival rates at 24 h in NIPPV were 97% versus 82% for NCPAP group. We have seen that the risk of failure for those received NCPAP was nearly 4 times higher than NIPPV group.
Conclusion : According to our results, among preterm infants with suspected (RDS), the use of NIPPV reduces the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in comparison to NCPAP.
Keywords: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure, Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation, espiratory distress syndrome, Neonate
Full-Text [PDF 163 kb]   (1445 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Pediatrics
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA code


XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Bahman-Bijari B, Mahdian R, Niknafs P, Baneshi M R. Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress. ZJRMS. 2014; 16 (11) :9-14
URL: http://zjrms.ir/article-1-3050-en.html


Volume 16, Issue 11 (Clinical Science Issue - November 2014) Back to browse issues page
Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3742