Journal
INDIAN PEDIATRICS
Volume 52, Issue 12, Pages 1035-1040Publisher
SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13312-015-0769-9
Keywords
Management; Mechanical ventilation; Non-invasive ventilation; Respiratory distress
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
To compare the effectiveness of nasal continuous positive airway pressure delivered by Nasal mask vs Nasal prongs with respect to continuous positive airway pressure failure. Randomized, controlled, open label, trial. Tertiary care level III neonatal unit. 118 preterm infants-gestational age (27-34 weeks) requiring nasal continuous positive airway pressure as a primary mode for respiratory distress, who were treated with either nasal mask (n=61) or nasal prongs (n=57) as interface. Need for mechanical ventilation within 72 h of initiating support. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure failure occurred in 8 (13%) of Mask group and 14 (25%) of Prongs group but was statistically not significant (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.24-1.17) (P = 0.15). The rate of pulmonary interstitial emphysema was significantly less in the Mask group (4.9% vs. 17.5%; RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96; P = 0.03). Incidence of moderate nasal trauma (6.5% vs 21%) (P=0.03) and overall nasal trauma (36% vs 58%) (P=0.02) were significantly lower in mask group than in the prongs group. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure with mask as interface is as effective as prongs but causes less nasal trauma and pulmonary interstitial emphysema.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available