Late preterm infants account for a significant majority of preterm infants born in the United States. According to the CDC, 70% of all preterm deliveries occur between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestational age. There is evidence to suggest that short-term morbidities, such as respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), are more prevalent in this population.1 Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) such as CPAP and humidified heated high-flow nasal cannula has been shown to be effective strategies for reducing RDS by optimising pulmonary mechanics, reducing work of breathing and improving oxygenation and ventilation. Increasing use of NIV has reduced intubation in infants with RDS, likely due to the combination of positive airway distension and lack of de-recruitment alveoli and collapse of small airways during exhalation in the surfactant-deficient lung.2 This non-inferiority study of HFNC compared to CPAP by Manley and colleagues is the latest in a series of studies looking at NIV delivery in late preterm RDS. Use of CPAP is well established as the standard of care for preterm infants with respiratory distress. Studies in a late preterm to term population of Caesarean-born infants demonstrated that prophylactic CPAP is helpful in reducing NICU admission by improving lung compliance and uniformity of lung compliance.2 High-flow nasal cannula as an alternative has been demonstrated to have several advantages, including decreased nasal trauma,3 and has been shown in prior surveys to be preferred by parents of admitted infants.4 Despite the possible advantages of HFNC, the main drawback is the variability in pressures that can be generated, leading to possible ‘failure’ of this mode of NIV. Given that many infants of GA 31 weeks or greater are cared for in a non-tertiary NICU, the setting of this study in a similar environment enhances the generalisability of the results. In this setting, when comparing HFNC and CPAP with the goal of preventing respiratory failure, HFNC was shown to be inferior to CPAP, as defined by study parameters. Many of those who failed therapy on HFNC and transferred to CPAP ultimately stabilised, so that in the end, only slightly more than 5% in each group were intubated in the first 72 hours. Given that both groups had similar rates of treatment failure that ultimately required transfer to higher level care, it may be reasonable for centres to offer HFNC as an alternative to CPAP when requested by parents or staff, so long as CPAP is available onsite to rescue these infants should they fail HFNC. https://ebneo.org/2019/07/nasal-high-flow/ None.
Read full abstract