Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Feasibility of bubble non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, a first-in-human study.
John, Stephen C; Adhikari, Bikash Raj; John, Anna V; Cheng, Eric O; Weiner, Gary M; John, Sunil P.
Afiliación
  • John SC; Department of Medicine Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
  • Adhikari BR; Biomedical Engineering, United Mission Hospital Tansen, Nepal.
  • John AV; Department of Pediatrics, United Mission Hospital Tansen, Nepal.
  • Cheng EO; Biomedical Engineering, United Mission Hospital Tansen, Nepal.
  • Weiner GM; Respiratory Therapists Without Borders, Newmarket, ON, Canada.
  • John SP; Department of Neonatology, C. S. Mott Children's Hospital, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA.
J Trop Pediatr ; 68(6)2022 10 06.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36370460
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Infant respiratory distress is  a significant cause of mortality globally. Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a simple and effective therapy, but sicker infants may require additional support such as non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV). We investigated the feasibility of a simple, low-cost, non-electric bubble NIPPV device.

METHODS:

In this cross-over feasibility study, seven newborns with moderate respiratory distress (Downes score ≥ 3), weight > 1500 g and gestational age > 32 weeks were randomized to  4 h of treatment with bubble CPAP (5-8 cm H2O) vs. bubble NIPPV (Phigh 8-10 cm H2O/Plow 5-8 cm H2O) followed by 4 h of the alternate treatment. Treatment order (CPAP vs. NIPPV) was randomized. Outcome measures included hourly vital signs, Downes score and O2 saturation. Adverse events including pneumothorax, nasal septal necrosis, necrotizing enterocolitis and death before discharge were also recorded.

RESULTS:

It took nurses 39 (7.3) s to assemble the bubble NIPPV device. Patients had similar vital signs and Downes scores on both treatments; median (IQR) values on bubble CPAP vs. bubble NIPPV were heart rate 140 (134.5, 144), 140 (134.5, 144); respiratory rate 70 (56, 80), 65 (58, 82), Downes score 4 (3, 5.75), 4 (3, 5), O2 96 (94, 98), 97 (96, 98). All newborns survived to discharge and there were no adverse events. .

CONCLUSIONS:

A simple, low-cost, non-electric method of providing NIPPV for newborns with respiratory distress is feasible in limited resource settings. Randomized-controlled trials comparing bubble CPAP and bubble NIPPV are justified.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria del Recién Nacido / Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Límite: Humans / Infant / Newborn Idioma: En Revista: J Trop Pediatr Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria del Recién Nacido / Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Límite: Humans / Infant / Newborn Idioma: En Revista: J Trop Pediatr Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos