Non-invasive ventilation provides adequate gas exchange minimizing pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications

The objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of NIPPV (nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation) and NHFOV (nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation) modes in newborns in the delivery room depending on the gestation period.

Subjects and methods. A prospective randomized study included 88 premature newborns with the body mass of 1,405 (1,085–1,760) gr. and gestation period 31 (29–32) weeks. In children of the first group, the NIPPV mode was used, and in the second group – NHFOV. Children of each group were divided into subgroups: subgroup 1 consisted of newborns with a gestation period of 30–32 weeks, subgroup 2 – 26–29 weeks.

Results. The need for the traditional ventilator was significantly greater in the group of NIPPV – 15 children, compared to the group of NHFOV – 2 children (p = 0.001). In the same subgroup, statistically significant differences were found in the frequency of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (p < 0.05). In particular, in the NIPPV group, BPD was registered in 33.3% of cases, while in the NHFOV group – 3.7% (p = 0.001). In children a gestation period of 26–29 weeks, the opposite results were noted. Retinopathy of prematurity was detected in 80% (12) of children on NHFOV and 12.5% (2) who received NIPPV (p = 0,001)). There were also statistically significant differences in the frequency of BPD formation – 9 cases in the first group, 13 cases in the second group (p = 0.04).

Conclusion. The use of NIPPV as a starting method of respiratory support is indicated to newborns with the gestation age of 26–29 weeks, and while in newborns with the gestation period of 30–32 weeks, the use of NHFOV is highly effective. 

1. Аleksandrovich Yu.S., Pshenisnov K.V. Respiratornaya podderzhka pri kriticheskikh sostoyaniyakh v pediatrii i neonatologii: Rukovodstvo dlya vrachey. [Critical respiratory support in pediatrics and neonatology: a guide for physicians]. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2020, 272 p.

2. Linkhoeva S.B., Аleksandrovich Yu.S., Pshenisnov K.V. et al. Selection of a non-invasive respiratory support mode for premature infants in the delivery room. Anesteziologiya i Reanimatologiya, 2020, no. 2, pp. 65-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/anaesthesiology202002165.

3. Shabalov N.P. Neonatologii. Ucheb. posobiye v 2 t. [Neonatology. A handbook. in 2 volumes]. N.P. Shabalov, 6th ed., suppl. and amend., Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2016, vol. 1, 704 p.

4. Aguiar T., Macedo I., Voutsen O. et al. Nasal bilevel versus continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Trials, 2015, vol. 5, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167– 0870.1000221.

5. Aleksandrovich Yu.S., Pshenisnov K.V., Chijenas V. Modern concepts of noninvasive respiratory support in neonatology. Baden-Baden: Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2015.

6. Course C., Chakraborty M. Management of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants in wales: a full audit cycle of a quality improvement project. Sci. Rep., 2020, vol. 3536. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60091-6.

7. DiBlasi R.M. Neonatal noninvasive ventilation techniques: do we really need to intubate? Respir. Care, 2011, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 1273–1297. doi:10.4187/respcare.01376.

8. Kessani V., Khan A., Quratulain B. et al. Nasal high frequency oscillatory ventilation (nhfov): rescue treatment for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak., 2020, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 771. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2020.07.771.

9. Kirpalani H., Millar D., Lemyre B. et al. A trial comparing noninvasive ventilation strategies in preterm infants. N. Engl. J. Med., 2013, vol. 369, no. 7, pp. 611–620. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1214533.

10. Lista G., Casoldi F., Fontana P. et al. Nasal continuous airway pressure versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized control trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 2010, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.169219.

11. Malakian A., Bashirnezhadkhabaz S., Aramesh M.R. et al. Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med., 2020, vol. 20, no. 33 (15), pp. 2601–2607. doi:10.1080/14767058.2018.1555810.

12. Mahmoud R.A., Roehr C.C., Schmalisch G. Current methods of non – invasive ventilatory support for neonates. Paediatr. Respir. Rev., 2011, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 196–205. doi:10.1016/j.prrv.2010.12.001.

13. Menses J., Bhandri V., Alves J.G. et al. Noninvasive ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics, 2011, vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0922.

14. Permall D.L., Pasha A.B., Chen X. Current insights in non-invasive ventilation for the treatment of neonatal respiratory disease. Ital. J. Pediatr., 2019, vol. 45, no. 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0707-x.

15. Shi Y., Muniraman H., Biniwale M. et al. A review on non-invasive respiratory support for management of respiratory distress in extremely preterm infants. Front. Pediatrics, 2020, vol. 8, pp. 270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00270.

16. Tahereh E., Nayeri F., Taheritafti R. et al. Comparison of complications and effcacy of NIPPV and Nasal CPAP in preterm infants with RDS. Iran. J. Pediatr., 2016, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 52–57. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijp.2352.

17. Zhu X.-W., Zhao J.-N., Tang S.-F. et al. Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with moderate-severe respiratory distress syndrome: A preliminary report. Pediatric Pulmonology, 2017, vol. 52, pp. 1038-1042. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.23755.