Randomized controlled trial of very early continuous distending pressure in the management of preterm infants

https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3782(87)90097-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Application of continuous distending pressure at birth (very early CDP) should stabilize the immature airways and reduce the severity of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants. Eighty-two preterm infants of less than 32 weeks gestation were randomly assigned at birth to early treatment group (TG), in which CDP of 6 cm water pressure was applied at birth by the nasopharyngeal route (NP-CDP), or to control group (CG), in which CDP was applied when indicated for established criteria (pO2 < 50 mmHg in FiO2 > 0.5). Characteristics of the infants in the two groups were comparable.

No statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in the incidence of RDS. The course of RDS, and oxygen and ventilatory requirements also did not appear to be changed. In blood gas parameters of most of the time frames, no significant difference was found between the two groups when the results were analyzed according to the assigned group. When the results were analyzed separately for the infants who developed RDS, infants in TG appear to have fared worse from the therapy in terms of oxygenation, as indicated by significantly higher FiO2 (P < 0.01) and lower a/A (P < 0.01) values on the third day of the course of RDS, as compared to infants in CG. The incidence of complications was comparable in the two groups. Four infants from TG (9.3%) and one from CG (2.6%) died (P = NS). We conclude that VECDP by nasopharyngeal route does not reduce the incidence of RDS and does not appear to improve the outcome and may worsen the severity of RDS when compared to application of CDP for established criteria

References (12)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (39)

  • Noninvasive Ventilation in the Age of Surfactant Administration

    2019, Clinics in Perinatology
    Citation Excerpt :

    In the meta-analysis of trials of comparing CPAP with supportive care, there was a marginal and imprecise reduction in the need for assisted ventilation (typical RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45–0.98; typical RD −0.16, 95% CI −0.34–0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants, very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference between CPAP and supportive care in the incidence of BPD defined at 28 days (typical RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77–1.36, 3 studies, 535 participants)36,38,39 or when defined at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age (typical RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50–1.24; 3 studies, 683 participants).37–39 The systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic or extremely early application of CPAP by Subramaniam and colleagues35 also includes 3 of the larger and more recent trials comparing CPAP with mechanical ventilation.40–42

  • Non-invasive respiratory support of preterm neonates with respiratory distress: Continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation

    2009, Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Therefore, reserving nCPAP for those babies with respiratory difficulties post-extubation may deliver the best results if resources are limited. Two randomised trials25,26 have addressed the question of whether nCPAP commenced soon after birth, irrespective of respiratory status, reduced mortality and morbidity of very preterm infants. The control group in both trials received oxygen via a headbox and additional support (nCPAP or endotracheal tube) if predefined oxygenation criteria were met.

  • Respiratory Disorders of the Newborn

    2008, Pediatric Respiratory Medicine
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text