Original ArticleA Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Levels after Extubation in Preterm Infants
Section snippets
Methods
The trial was conducted in the “Project NewBorn” neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital between November, 2006 and January, 2012 with approval of the University of Miami Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research and the Jackson Health System Clinical Trials Office.
Preterm infants of birth weight (BW) between 500 to 1000 g and 23-30 weeks GA were eligible if they required mechanical ventilation within the first 7
Results
A total of 504 infants of BW between 500 and 1000 g and GA between 23 and 30 weeks were admitted to the NICU during the trial period. Of these, 244 infants were eligible for the study and a total 176 infants were enrolled. Infants (n = 93) were randomized following their first extubation; 47 infants were randomized to the low and 46 infants to the high NCPAP range (Figure). Table I shows the population demographics, perinatal data, and respiratory support at the time of extubation. The 2 groups
Discussion
The incidence of extubation failure in the extreme preterm infant population remains important. This is more evident among the most premature infants and those with residual lung disease who require supplemental oxygen at the time of extubation. This trial sought to determine if the use of a higher than conventional distending airway pressure would reduce extubation failure in this population of at risk infants.
In the present trial, the higher range of NCPAP showed a significant advantage in
References (16)
- et al.
National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Extremely low birth weight neonates with protracted ventilation: mortality and 18-month neurodevelopmental outcomes
J Pediatr
(2005) - et al.
Outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia: impact of the physiologic definition
Early Hum Dev
(2012) - et al.
Continuous positive airway pressure selectively reduces obstructive apnea in preterm infants
J Pediatr
(1985) - et al.
The epidemiology of atypical chronic lung disease in extremely low birth weight infants
J Perinatol
(2008) - et al.
NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Predictors of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants with respiratory failure
J Perinatol
(2008) - et al.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Prediction of bronchopulmonary dysplasia by postnatal age in extremely premature infants
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
(2011) - et al.
Treatment of idiopathic respiratory distress syndrome with continuous positive airway pressure
N Engl J Med
(1971) - et al.
A device for administration of continuous positive airway pressure by the nasal route
Pediatrics
(1973)
Cited by (74)
Higher versus lower nasal continuous positive airway pressure for extubation of extremely preterm infants in Australia (ÉCLAT): a multicentre, randomised, superiority trial
2023, The Lancet Child and Adolescent HealthNeonatal Respiratory Therapy
2023, Avery's Diseases of the NewbornNon-invasive ventilatory support in neonates: An evidence-based update
2022, Paediatric Respiratory ReviewsNoninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilation in Postextubation Stabilization of Preterm Infants: A Randomized Controlled Study
2022, Journal of PediatricsCitation Excerpt :NCPAP prevents the obstructive component of apnea, reducing severe and frequent apneic episodes.10,36 However, significant apnea still accounts for 30% of reintubations in preterm infants with NCPAP.37 In the present study, apnea was the most common cause of extubation failure in the study population (84.6%).
Respiratory support of infants born at 22–24 weeks of gestational age
2022, Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
Supported by the University of Miami Project NewBorn. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The study was not registered with ClinicalTrials.gov because at the time the study was first submitted to the Institutional Review Board in September 2006, the investigators' understanding was that registration was required for federally or privately funded clinical trials involving investigational devices or drugs. The authors later learned that this was not the case, but unfortunately enrollment had already begun and the trial could no longer be registered.