A Comparative Study of Treatment Response of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: Early Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Early Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

Authors

Department of Pediatrics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, IR Iran.

Abstract

Background
Infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) is one of the main causes of serious complications and death in preterm infants. Both Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP) and Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) are known as the most common treatment strategies for IRDS. The present study intended to compare NCPAP and NIPPV in the treatment of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.
Materials and Methods
To this double blind clinical trial study during a one-year period (2016 to 2017) in Fatemieh Hospital in Hamadan city (Iran), about 60 preterm RDS infants were randomly assigned into two treatment groups; the NIPPV group received the PIP (14–20 cmH2O), RR: 30-50/min, PEEP (5–6 cmH2O), FiO2 up to 60%. The NCPAP group received PEEP (5-6 cmH2o), Flow: 6-7 L/min, and FiO2 up to 60%
Results
There was not any significant difference in the mean values of gestational age (30.07±1.50 vs. 30.07±2.05; P>0.05), birth weight (1259±263 vs. 1235±285; P>0.05), and 1-minute Apgar score (5.53±1.13 vs. 5.33±1.34; P>0.05) between NIPPV and NCPAP treatment groups. Besides, the rate of recovery, mortality and disease complications was not significantly different between both groups. However, the duration of respiratory support was less in NIPPV than NCPAP (34.9±33.8 vs. 68.4±32 h; P=0.001).
Conclusion
According to the results, there was not significant advantage between the NIPPV vs. NCPAP methods in the treatment of RDS in preterm infants with very low birth weight.

Keywords

Journal of Pediatric Perspectives
Volume 6, Issue 10 - Serial Number 58
October 2018
Pages 8339-8346

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics