Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Respiratory mechanics during NCPAP and HHHFNC at equal distending pressures
  1. Anna Lavizzari1,
  2. Chiara Veneroni2,
  3. Mariarosa Colnaghi1,
  4. Francesca Ciuffini1,
  5. Emanuela Zannin2,
  6. Monica Fumagalli1,
  7. Fabio Mosca1,
  8. Raffaele L Dellacà2
  1. 1NICU, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico-Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  2. 2TBM Lab, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneira–DEIB, Politecnico di Milano University, Milan, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anna Lavizzari, NICU, Fondazione IRCCS Ca'Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico–Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy, Via Della Commenda 12, Milan 20122, Italy; anna.lavizzari{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective To compare the effect of heated, humidified, high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) and nasal continuous positive airways pressure (NCPAP) on lung function and mechanics in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) at the same level of retropharyngeal pressure (Prp).

Design Randomised crossover trial.

Setting Neonatal intensive care unit, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.

Patients 20 preterm infants (gestational age: 31±1 wks) with mild-moderate RDS requiring non-invasive respiratory support within 96 h after birth.

Interventions Infants were exposed to a randomised sequence of NCPAP and HHHFNC at different settings (2, 4 and 6 cmH2O for NCPAP and 2, 4, 6 L/min for HHHFNC) to enable comparison at the same level of Prp.

Main outcome measures Tidal volume by respiratory inductance plethysmography, pleural pressure estimated by oesophageal pressure, and gas exchange were evaluated at each setting and used to compute breathing pattern parameters, lung mechanics and work of breathing (WOB).

Results A poor linear regression between flow and Prp was found during HHHFNC (Prp=0.3+0.7*flow; r2=0.37). Only in 15 out of 20 infants it was possible to compare HHHFNC and NCPAP at a Prp of 2 and 4 cmH2O. No statistically significant differences were found in breathing pattern, gas exchange, lung mechanics and total WOB. Resistive WOB in the upper airways was slightly but significantly higher during HHHFNC (0.65 (0.49;1.09) vs 1.57 (0.85;2.09) cmH2O median (IQR)).

Conclusions Despite differing mechanisms for generating positive airway pressure, when compared at the same Prp, NCPAP and HHHFNC provide similar effects on all the outcomes explored.

  • Neonatology
  • Respiratory

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.