Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a strategy to maintain positive airway pressure throughout the respiratory cycle through the application of a bias flow of respiratory gas to an apparatus attached to the nose. Early treatment with NCPAP is associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation exposure and might reduce chronic lung disease. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a form of noninvasive ventilation delivered through the same nasal interface during which patients are exposed to short inflations, along with background end-expiratory pressure. OBJECTIVES: To examine the risks and benefits of early (within the first six hours after birth) NIPPV versus early NCPAP for preterm infants at risk of or with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Primary endpoints are respiratory failure and the need for intubated ventilatory support during the first week of life. Secondary endpoints include the incidence of mortality, chronic lung disease (CLD) (oxygen therapy at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age), pneumothorax, duration of respiratory support, duration of oxygen therapy, and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH). SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in January 2023 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts. The reference lists of related systematic reviews and of studies selected for inclusion were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies compared NIPPV versus NCPAP treatment, starting within six hours after birth in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestational age (GA)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected and analyzed data using the recommendations of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials, enrolling 1958 infants in this review. NIPPV likely reduces the rate of respiratory failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.78; risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05; 17 RCTs, 1958 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and needing endotracheal tube ventilation (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.04; 16 RCTs; 1848 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) amongst infants treated with early NIPPV compared with early NCPAP. The meta-analysis demonstrated that NIPPV may reduce the risk of developing CLD compared to CPAP (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 12 RCTs, 1284 infants; low-certainty evidence) slightly. NIPPV may result in little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.10; 17 RCTs; 1958 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of pneumothorax (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; 16 RCTs; 1674 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence), and rates of severe IVH (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.79; 8 RCTs; 977 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When applied within six hours after birth, NIPPV likely reduces the risk of respiratory failure and the need for intubation and endotracheal tube ventilation in very preterm infants (GA 28 weeks and above) with respiratory distress syndrome or at risk for RDS. It may also decrease the rate of CLD slightly. However, most trials enrolled infants with a gestational age of approximately 28 to 32 weeks with an overall mean gestational age of around 30 weeks. As such, the results of this review may not apply to extremely preterm infants that are most at risk of needing mechanical ventilation or developing CLD. Additional studies are needed to confirm these results and to assess the safety of NIPPV compared with NCPAP alone in a larger patient population.

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation.

BACKGROUND: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a useful method for providing respiratory support after extubation. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) can augment NCPAP by delivering ventilator breaths via nasal prongs. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To determine the effects of management with NIPPV versus NCPAP on the need for additional ventilatory support in preterm infants whose endotracheal tube was removed after a period of intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Secondary objectives To compare rates of abdominal distension, gastrointestinal perforation, necrotising enterocolitis, chronic lung disease, pulmonary air leak, mortality, duration of hospitalisation, rates of apnoea and neurodevelopmental status at 18 to 24 months for NIPPV and NCPAP. To compare the effect of NIPPV versus NCPAP delivered via ventilators versus bilevel devices, and assess the effects of the synchronisation of ventilation, and the strength of interventions in different economic settings. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of ventilated preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age (GA)) ready for extubation to non-invasive respiratory support. Interventions were NIPPV and NCPAP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. respiratory failure. Our secondary outcomes were 2. endotracheal reintubation, 3. abdominal distension, 4. gastrointestinal perforation, 5. necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), 6. chronic lung disease, 7. pulmonary air leak, 8. mortality, 9. hospitalisation, 10. apnoea and bradycardia, and 11. neurodevelopmental status. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials (2738 infants). Compared to NCPAP, NIPPV likely reduces the risk of respiratory failure postextubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.84; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 8 to 17; 19 trials, 2738 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and endotracheal reintubation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 25; 17 trials, 2608 infants, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce pulmonary air leaks (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.87; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to infinite; 13 trials, 2404 infants; low-certainty evidence). NIPPV likely results in little to no difference in gastrointestinal perforation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 8 trials, 1478 infants, low-certainty evidence), NEC (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.15; 10 trials, 2069 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), chronic lung disease defined as oxygen requirement at 36 weeks (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; 9 trials, 2001 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mortality prior to discharge (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.07; 11 trials, 2258 infants; low-certainty evidence). When considering subgroup analysis, ventilator-generated NIPPV likely reduces respiratory failure postextubation (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62; 1057 infants; I2 = 47%; moderate-certainty evidence), while bilevel devices (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17; 716 infants) or a mix of both ventilator-generated and bilevel devices likely results in little to no difference (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02; 965 infants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NIPPV likely reduces the incidence of extubation failure and the need for reintubation within 48 hours to one-week postextubation more effectively than NCPAP in very preterm infants (GA 28 weeks and above). There is a paucity of data for infants less than 28 weeks' gestation. Pulmonary air leaks were also potentially reduced in the NIPPV group. However, it has no effect on other clinically relevant outcomes such as gastrointestinal perforation, NEC, chronic lung disease or mortality. Ventilator-generated NIPPV appears superior to bilevel devices in reducing the incidence of respiratory failure postextubation failure and need for reintubation. Synchronisation used to deliver NIPPV may be important; however, data are insufficient to support strong conclusions. Future trials should enrol a sufficient number of infants, particularly those less than 28 weeks' GA, to detect differences in death or chronic lung disease and should compare different categories of devices, establish the impact of synchronisation of NIPPV on safety and efficacy of the technique as well as the best combination of settings for NIPPV (rate, peak pressure and positive end-expiratory). Trials should strive to match the mean airway pressure between the intervention groups to allow a better comparison. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist needs further assessment with properly powered randomised trials.