Abstract
BackgroundThe use of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation (NCPAP) has begun to increase and is progressively replacing conventional mechanical ventilation (MV), becoming the cornerstone treatment for newborn respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Howerver, NCPAP use in Lower-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) is poor. Moreover, bubble NCPAP (bNCPAP), for efficacy, cost effectiveness, and ease of use, should be the primary assistance technique employed in newborns with RDS.Objective: To measure the impact on in-hospital newborn mortality of using a bNCPAP device as the first intervention on newborns requiring ventilatory assistance.MethodsDesign: Prospective pre-intervention and post-intervention study.Setting: The largest Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) in Nicaragua.Participants: In all, 230 (2006) and 383 (2008) patients were included.Intervention: In May 2006, a strategy was introduced to promote the systematic use of bNCPAP to avoid intubation and MV in newborns requiring ventilatory assistance. Data regarding gestation, delivery, postnatal course, mortality, length of hospitalisation, and duration of ventilatory assistance were collected for infants assisted between May and December 2006, before the project began, and between May and December 2008, two years afterwards.Outcome measures: The pre- vs post-intervention proportion of newborns who died in-hospital was the primary end point. Secondary endpoints included rate of intubation and duration of NICU stay.ResultsSignificant differences were found in the rate of intubation (72 vs 39%; p < 0.0001) and the proportion of patients treated exclusively with bNCPAP (27% vs 61%; p <0.0001). Mortality rate was significantly reduced (40 vs 23%; p < 0.0001); however, an increase in the mean duration of NICU stay was observed (14.6 days in 2006 and 17.5 days in 2008, p = 0.0481).The findings contribute to the evidence that NCPAP, particularly bNCPAP, is the first-line standard of care for efficacy, cost effectiveness, and ease of use in newborns with respiratory distress in LMICs.ConclusionsThis is the first extensive survey performed in a large NICU from a LMICs, proving the efficacy of the systematic use of a bNCPAP device in reducing newborn mortality. These findings are an incentive for considering bNCPAP as an elective strategy to treat newborns with respiratory insufficiency in LMICs.
Highlights
The use of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation (NCPAP) has begun to increase and is progressively replacing conventional mechanical ventilation (MV), becoming the cornerstone treatment for newborn respiratory distress syndrome (RDS)
Article focus In Lower-Middle Income Countries (LMICs), a majority of the under-5 mortality rate is due to neonatal deaths
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of using a bubble NCPAP device as the first intervention on mortality of newborns in the largest Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) in Nicaragua
Summary
The use of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation (NCPAP) has begun to increase and is progressively replacing conventional mechanical ventilation (MV), becoming the cornerstone treatment for newborn respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). NCPAP use in Lower-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) is poor. Bubble NCPAP (bNCPAP), for efficacy, cost effectiveness, and ease of use, should be the primary assistance technique employed in newborns with RDS. The neonatal death rate seems to have increased from the 37% observed in 2000 to the 42% of the overall estimated child mortality recorded in 2010 [1]. In Lower-Middle Income Countries (LMICs), newborn deaths are dramatically prevalent, and lack of human and economical resources makes accomplishing the MDG4 challenging [2]. Among the interventions for reducing the newborn mortality rate, Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation (NCPAP) is of proven efficacy [3]. The bubble NCPAP (bNCPAP), is the simplest, low-cost respiratory support system, showing theoretical and experimental advantages, as well as similar, or greater, clinical efficacy compared to other, more sophisticated methods to deliver NCPAP (variable flow and ventilator NCPAP) [4,5,6,7,8,9]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.