Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation Research Articles

Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) reduces extubation failures in preterm neonates-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To analyse the evidence of non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in preterm neonates compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and included studies where NIV-NAVA was analysed in preterm (<37 gestational weeks) born neonates. Our main outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, the need for surfactant therapy, and reintubation rates. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of five studies were included. The endotracheal intubation rate was 25% in the NIV-NAVA group and 26% in the nCPAP group (RR 0.91, CI: 0.56-1.48). The respective rates for surfactant therapy were 30% and 35% (RR 0.85, CI: 0.56-1.29). The reintubation rate in neonates previously invasively ventilated was 8% in the NIV-NAVA group and 29% in the nCPAP/NIPPV group (RR 0.29, 95%CI: 0.10-0.81). Evidence certainty was rated as low for all outcomes. NIV-NAVA as the primary respiratory support did not reduce the need for endotracheal intubation or surfactant therapy. NIV-NAVA seemed to reduce the reintubation rate after extubation in pre-term neonates.

Non-invasive high-frequency ventilation in newborn infants with respiratory distress.

Non-invasive high-frequency ventilation in newborn infants with respiratory distress.

The Outcomes of Preterm Infants with Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome Treated by Minimally Invasive Surfactant Therapy and Non-Invasive Ventilation.

In recent years, the utilization of minimally invasive surfactant therapy (MIST) and Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as the primary respiratory assistance has become increasingly prevalent among preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). This study aims to compare the outcomes between MIST administered with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), with the objective of exploring the respiratory therapeutic benefits of these two approaches. This retrospective study collected data from the neonatal intensive care unit of Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital spanning from January 2016 to June 2021. Infants were divided into two groups based on the type of NIV utilized. The NCPAP group comprised 32 infants, while the NIPPV group comprised 22 infants. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences: the NIPPV group had a smaller gestational age, lower birth weight, higher proportion of female infants, and earlier initiation of MIST. Additionally, the NIPPV group exhibited higher incidence rates of retinopathy of prematurity, longer respiratory support duration, prolonged hospitalization, and mortality. However, upon adjustment, these differences were not statistically significant. Analysis of venous blood gas and respiratory parameter changes indicated that both the NCPAP and NIPPV groups experienced improvements in oxygenation and ventilation following MIST.

CPAP Versus NIPPV Postextubation in Preterm Neonates: A Comparative-Effectiveness Study.

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been shown to be superior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) postextubation in preterm neonates. However, studies have not permitted high CPAP pressures or rescue with other modes. We hypothesized that if CPAP pressures >8 cmH2O and rescue with other modes were permitted, CPAP would be noninferior to NIPPV. We conducted a pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness, noninferiority study utilizing network-based real-world data from 22 Canadian NICUs. Centers self-selected CPAP or NIPPV as their standard postextubation mode for preterm neonates <29 weeks' gestation. The primary outcome was failure of the initial mode ≤72 hours. Secondary outcomes included failure ≤7 days, and reintubation ≤72 hours and ≤7 days. Groups were compared using a noninferiority adjusted risk-difference (aRD) margin of 0.05, and margin of no difference. A total of 843 infants extubated to CPAP and 974 extubated to NIPPV were included. CPAP was not noninferior (and inferior) to NIPPV for failure of the initial mode ≤72 hours (33.0% vs 26.3%; aRD 0.07 [0.03 to 0.12], Pnoninferiority(NI) = .86), and ≤7 days (40.7% vs 35.8%; aRD 0.09 [0.05 to 0.13], PNI = 0.97). However, CPAP was noninferior (and equivalent) to NIPPV for reintubation ≤72 hours (13.2% vs 16.1%; aRD 0.01 [-0.05 to 0.02], PNI < .01), and noninferior (and superior) for reintubation ≤7 days (16.4% vs 22.8%; aRD -0.04 [-0.07 to -0.001], PNI < .01). CPAP was not noninferior to NIPPV for failure ≤72 hours postextubation; however, it was noninferior to NIPPV for reintubation ≤72 hours and ≤7 days. This suggests CPAP may be a reasonable initial postextubation mode if alternate rescue strategies are available.

The Diaphragmatic Initiated Ventilatory Assist (DIVA) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing rates of extubation failure in extremely premature infants undergoing extubation to non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation

BackgroundInvasive mechanical ventilation contributes to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), the most common complication of prematurity and the leading respiratory cause of childhood morbidity. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) may limit invasive ventilation exposure and can be either synchronized or non-synchronized (NS). Pooled data suggest synchronized forms may be superior. Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) delivers NIV synchronized to the neural signal for breathing, which is detected with a specialized catheter. The DIVA (Diaphragmatic Initiated Ventilatory Assist) trial aims to determine in infants born 240/7–276/7 weeks’ gestation undergoing extubation whether NIV-NAVA compared to non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NS-NIPPV) reduces the incidence of extubation failure within 5 days of extubation.MethodsThis is a prospective, unblinded, pragmatic, multicenter phase III randomized clinical trial. Inclusion criteria are preterm infants 24–276/7 weeks gestational age who were intubated within the first 7 days of life for at least 12 h and are undergoing extubation in the first 28 postnatal days. All sites will enter an initial run-in phase, where all infants are allocated to NIV-NAVA, and an independent technical committee assesses site performance. Subsequently, all enrolled infants are randomized to NIV-NAVA or NS-NIPPV at extubation. The primary outcome is extubation failure within 5 days of extubation, defined as any of the following: (1) rise in FiO2 at least 20% from pre-extubation for > 2 h, (2) pH ≤ 7.20 or pCO2 ≥ 70 mmHg; (3) > 1 apnea requiring positive pressure ventilation (PPV) or ≥ 6 apneas requiring stimulation within 6 h; (4) emergent intubation for cardiovascular instability or surgery. Our sample size of 478 provides 90% power to detect a 15% absolute reduction in the primary outcome. Enrolled infants will be followed for safety and secondary outcomes through 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age, discharge, death, or transfer.DiscussionThe DIVA trial is the first large multicenter trial designed to assess the impact of NIV-NAVA on relevant clinical outcomes for preterm infants. The DIVA trial design incorporates input from clinical NAVA experts and includes innovative features, such as a run-in phase, to ensure consistent technical performance across sites.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, trial identifier NCT05446272, registered July 6, 2022.

Retraction Notice

This study aimed to identify risk factors for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure in <30 weeks' gestation preterm neonates and compare morbidity in patients with and without NIV failure. This retrospective study included preterm neonates <30 weeks' gestation who received NIV support for respiratory distress syndrome. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between infants with and without NIV failure within the first 72 hours after birth. Of 443 preterm neonates, NIV failure occurred in 101 (22.8%). Of these, initial respiratory support was nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in 76 infants (75.2%) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in 25 infants (24.8%) (p < 0.001). Gestational age, birth weight, and antenatal steroid exposure were significantly lower in patients with NIV failure. Grade III-IV intraventricular hemorrhage, moderate/severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and retinopathy of prematurity requiring laser photocoagulation were significantly more common in the NIV failure group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that antenatal steroid therapy reduced NIV failure (odds ratio [OR]: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.94; p = 0.03), while nCPAP (OR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.53 to 4.48; p < 0.001), surfactant requirement (OR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.36 to 4.25; p = 0.003), and ≥2 doses of surfactant need (OR: 3.57, 95% CI: 1.89 to 6.74; p < 0.001) were associated with greater NIV failure. The results of this study indicated that administering antenatal steroids and using NIPPV or BiPAP instead of nCPAP as initial respiratory support reduced the likelihood of NIV failure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.

Safety of bubble nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress.

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) is an effective therapy for infants in respiratory distress. We here report the safety of a novel, low-cost, non-electric bubble NIPPV device in comparison with bubble NCPAP. At Paramitha Children's Hospital (Hyderabad, India), preterm (n = 60) neonates with moderate respiratory distress were pragmatically allocated to bubble NCPAP (5-8 cm H2O) or bubble NIPPV (Phigh 8-12 cm H2O/Plow 5-8 cm H2O) based on staff and equipment availability. Primary outcomes to assess safety included clinically relevant pneumothorax, nasal septal necrosis, or abdominal distention. One patient in each arm developed minor nasal septal injury (grade 3 on NCPAP, grade 2 on NIPPV); no patients in either arm developed a clinically significant pneumothorax or abdominal distention. The similar rates of nasal septal injury, pneumothorax and abdominal distention suggest that bubble NIPPV has a similar safety profile as bubble NCPAP for preterm infants in respiratory distress.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs. Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Neonates: What if Mean Airway Pressures were Equivalent?

Respiratory support for preterm neonates in modern neonatal intensive care unit is predominantly with the use of non-invasive interfaces. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are the prototypical and most commonly utilized forms of non-invasive respiratory support, and each has unique gas flow characteristics. In meta-analyses of clinical trials till date, NIPPV has been shown to likely reduce respiratory failure and need for intubation compared to CPAP. However, a significant limitation of the included studies has been the higher mean airway pressures used during NIPPV. Thus, it is unclear to what extent any benefits seen with NIPPV are due to the cyclic pressure application vs. the higher mean airway pressures. In this review, we elaborate on these limitations and summarize the available evidence comparing NIPPV and CPAP at equivalent mean airway pressures. Finally, we call for further studies comparing non-invasive respiratory support modes at equal mean airway pressures.

A Survey of the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies on Neonatal Respiratory Care in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.

(1) Background: Our survey aimed to gather information on respiratory care in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) in the European and Mediterranean region. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional electronic survey. An 89-item questionnaire focusing on the current modes, devices, and strategies employed in neonatal units in the domain of respiratory care was sent to directors/heads of 528 NICUs. The adherence to the "European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome" was assessed for comparison. (3) Results: The response rate was 75% (397/528 units). In most Delivery Rooms (DRs), full resuscitation is given from 22 to 23 weeks gestational age. A T-piece device with facial masks or short binasal prongs are commonly used for respiratory stabilization. Initial FiO2 is set as per guidelines. Most units use heated humidified gases to prevent heat loss. SpO2 and ECG monitoring are largely performed. Surfactant in the DR is preferentially given through Intubation-Surfactant-Extubation (INSURE) or Less-Invasive-Surfactant-Administration (LISA) techniques. DR caffeine is widespread. In the NICUs, most of the non-invasive modes used are nasal CPAP and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Volume-targeted, synchronized intermittent positive-pressure ventilation is the preferred invasive mode to treat acute respiratory distress. Pulmonary recruitment maneuvers are common approaches. During NICU stay, surfactant administration is primarily guided by FiO2 and SpO2/FiO2 ratio, and it is mostly performed through LISA or INSURE. Steroids are used to facilitate extubation and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia. (4) Conclusions: Overall, clinical practices are in line with the 2022 European Guidelines, but there are some divergences. These data will allow stakeholders to make comparisons and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Erratum: Carbon Dioxide Level between Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation after Extubation in Neonates: A Cross-over Randomized Controlled Trial.

Erratum: Carbon Dioxide Level between Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation after Extubation in Neonates: A Cross-over Randomized Controlled Trial.

Erratum: Reintubation Rate between Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation versus Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Neonates: A Parallel Randomized Controlled Trial.

Erratum: Reintubation Rate between Nasal High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation versus Synchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Neonates: A Parallel Randomized Controlled Trial.

A clinical study evaluating the combination of LISA and SNIPPV for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants

To compare the therapeutic effect of less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) followed by synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) and traditional intubate-Surfactant-Extubate (InSurE) strategy for the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS). A single-center, non-randomized and single- blinded study Tertiary neonatal intensive care unit 89 infants enrolled were preterm with gestational age < 366/7 weeks and clinically diagnosed with neonatal RDS (NRDS) Interventions: 32 infants were assigned to the LISA + SNIPPV group and 57 infants to the InSurE + nCPAP group. No statistically significant differences were noted in the baseline characteristics of the enrolled infants. A lower proportion of infants developed BPD in the LISA + SNIPPV group compared to the InSurE + CPAP group [10 (31.25%) vs. 21 (36.84%), P > 0.05]; however, there was no statistically significant difference. The number needed to treat (NNT) with LISA + SNIPPV to prevent BPD development is 18. The mortality rate was not significant between our study arms [1 (3.13%) vs 2 (3.51%), P > 0.05]. There were no statistically significant differences in the durations (days) of MV [(12.18 ± 13.89) vs. (11.35 ± 11.61), P > 0.05], oxygen therapy [(35.03 ± 19.13) vs. (39.75 ± 17.91), P > 0.05] and re-intubation rates [(0.19 ± 0.40) vs. (0.21 ± 0.45), P > 0.05] between the two study groups. In terms of complications, the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) [24 (75.00%) vs. 27 (47.37%), P < 0.05] was higher and a lower rate of disturbed liver function [1 (3.23%) vs. 19 (33.33%), P < 0.05] were observed in the LISA + SNIPPV group. Acid–base imbalances were reportedly significantly higher in the InSurE group (P < 0.05). No significant differences in other complications were noted. In the interventional group, FiO2 requirements were significantly lower up until the 3rd week of treatment [FiO2 at day 0, (30.75 ± 4.78) vs. (34.66 ± 9.83), P < 0.05; FiO2 at day 21, (25.32 ± 3.74) vs. (29.11 ± 8.17), P < 0.05], as was RSS on days 2 [(0.77 ± 0.38) vs. (1.94 ± 0.75), P < 0.05] and 3 [(0.66 ± 0.33) vs. (1.89 ± 0.82), P < 0.05] after treatment. Additionally, infants in the standard group had a significantly prolonged hospital stay (days) [(45.97 ± 16.93) vs. (54.40 ± 16.26), P < 0.05]. The combination of LISA and SNIPPV for NRDS can potentially lower the rate of BPD, FiO2 demand and shorten the length of hospitalization.

EBNEO Commentary: Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation as postextubation support for preterm neonates in China: A randomized clinical trial.

EBNEO Commentary: Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation as postextubation support for preterm neonates in China: A randomized clinical trial.

Comparative Effect of High-Frequency Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation on the Work of Breathing and Postoperative Pulmonary Complication after Pediatric Congenital Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Various forms of commonly used noninvasive respiratory support strategies have considerable effect on diaphragmatic contractile function which can be evaluated using sonographic diaphragm activity parameters. To compare the magnitude of respiratory workload decreased as assessed by thickening fraction of the diaphragm and longitudinal diaphragmatic strain while using high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) modes [nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)] in pediatric patients after cardiothoracic surgery. This prospective randomized controlled trial was performed at a tertiary care surgical intensive care unit in postcardiac surgery patients aged between 1 and 48 months, who were randomly allocated into three groups: 1) HFNC (with flows at 2 L/kg/min), 2) NIPPV via RAMS cannula in PSV mode (pressure support 8 cmH2O, PEEP 5 cmH2O), and 3) BiPAP in nCPAP mode (CPAP of 5 cmH2O). Measurements were recorded at baseline after extubation (R0) and subsequently every 12 hourly (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 hours respectively until therapy was discontinued. Sixty patients were included, with 20 patients each in the NIPPV group, HFNC group, and BiPAP group. Longitudinal strain at crura of diaphragm was lower in the BiPAP group as compared to HFNC group at R2-R4 [R2 (-4.27± -2.73 vs - 8.40± -6.40, P = 0.031), R3 (-5.32± -2.28 vs -8.44± -5.6, P = 0.015), and R4 (-3.8± -3.42 vs -12.4± -7.12, P = 0.040)]. PFR was higher in HFNC than NIPPV group at baseline and R1-R3[R0 (323 ± 114 vs 264 ± 80, P = 0.008), R1 (311 ± 114 vs 233 ± 66, P = 0.022), R2 (328 ± 116 vs 237 ± 4, P = 0.002), R3 (346 ± 112 vs 238 ± 54, P = 0.001)]. DTF and clinical parameters of increased work of breathing remain comparable between three groups. The rate of reintubation (within 48 hours of extubation or at ICU discharge) was 0.06% (1 in NIPPV, 1 in BiPAP, 2 in HFNC) and remain comparable between groups (P = 1.0). BiPAP may provide better decrease in work of breathing compared to HFNC as reflected by lower crural diaphragmatic strain pattern. HFNC may provide better oxygenation compared to NIPPV group, as reflected by higher PFR ratio. Failure rate and safety profile are similar among different methods used.

Noninvasive Positive Airway Pressure Management for Post-extubation Support in Preterm Infants: Observational Cohort Study with Overlap Weighting Analysis.

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP), nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are often used after initial extubation in preterm infants. However, data regarding the choice between NCPAP/NIPPV and HFNC are limited. This study examined which therapy was more effective as post-extubation support. This is a retrospective, cohort study that used the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in Japan, 2011-2021. Propensity score overlap weighting analyses were performed to compare the composite outcomes of in-hospital death and reintubation in preterm infants who received NCPAP/NIPPV and HFNC. We identified infants born at gestational age 22-36 weeks who were intubated within 1 day of birth. We included patients who underwent NCPAP/NIPPV or HFNC after initial extubation. Patients with airway obstruction or congenital airway abnormalities were excluded. We identified 1,203 preterm infants treated with NCPAP/NIPPV (n = 525) or HFNC (n = 678). The median (interquartile range) gestational age at delivery was 30 (27-33) weeks, and birth weight was 1296 (884-1,802) g. Compared with the HFNC group, the NCPAP/NIPPV group had a significantly lower proportion of the composite outcome after the overlap weighting analysis (risk ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.83; p = 0.001). This significant difference was also observed in infants born at gestational age 22-31 weeks, whereas no significant difference was observed in infants born at gestational age 32-36 weeks. NCPAP/NIPPV may be a superior post-extubation support than HFNC in preterm infants, especially in those born at gestational age of 22-31 weeks.

The demographic profile, clinical spectrum, and outcome of term neonates requiring continuous positive airway pressure in a tertiary care teaching hospital

Background: Respiratory distress is the major cause of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission of full-term neonates for which they require different levels of mode of ventilation. Aims and Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the demographic profile, clinical spectrum, and outcome of term neonates, requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in tertiary care teaching hospitals. Materials and Methods: The study was a prospective observational study conducted from December 2020 to November 2022 in the neonatal section of the department of pediatrics. Results: A total of 261 neonates were included in the study. The male-to-female ratio was 1.7:1, the range of birth weight was between 2.1 kg and 3 kg (60.91%), the gestation age was 38 weeks (59.2%), and 73.6% were lower-segment cesarean section born. The age of starting CPAP in most of the newborns was at admission to NICU (in 69.73% of cases). The success rate of CPAP therapy was high (60.9%) and the rest 39.08% of patients did not settle with CPAP and required higher modes of respiratory support such as nasalintermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) (5.89%) and IPPV (94.11%). Conclusion: In the resource-limiting settings, due to the non-availability of higher levels of ventilatory gadgets, the early use of CPAP as a mode of ventilation in full-term babies with transient tachypnea of newborns is well-documented and it can be safely used in other common neonatal conditions which can cause respiratory distress in full-term neonates. The low-middle-income countries are facing challenges to improve comprehensive neonatal care; there is a dire need for simple and cost-effective methods of respiratory support. Bubble CPAP is one such promising ventilatory support intervention, which may reduce the need for costly mechanical ventilators.

Effectiveness of a novel bubble CPAP system for neonatal respiratory support at a referral hospital in the Philippines.

To examine the impact of introducing and implementing the Vayu bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) system on neonatal survival and neonatal respiratory outcomes in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in the Philippines. We compared clinical outcomes of 1,024 neonates before to 979 neonates after introduction of Vayu bCPAP systems into a NICU. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Analyses were undertaken separately for the entire NICU population and for neonates who received any form of respiratory support. The introduction of the Vayu bCPAP system was associated with (1) significant reductions in intubation (aOR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.96) and in the use of nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) (aOR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50-0.96) among the entire NICU population and (2) a significant increase in survival to discharge (aOR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.09-2.17) and significant reductions in intubation (aOR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.71), surfactant administration (aOR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40-0.89), NIPPV use (aOR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.36-0.76), and a composite neonatal adverse outcome (aOR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.42-0.84) among neonates who received any form of respiratory support. The use of the Vayu bCPAP system in a NICU in the Philippines resulted in significant improvement in neonatal respiratory outcomes.

Airway management in neonates and infants: European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and British Journal of Anaesthesia joint guidelines

Airway management is required during general anaesthesia and is essential for life-threatening conditions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Evidence from recent trials indicates a high incidence of critical events during airway management, especially in neonates or infants. It is important to define the optimal techniques and strategies for airway management in these groups. In this joint European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) guideline on airway management in neonates and infants, we present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing safe and effective medical care. We identified seven main areas of interest for airway management: i) preoperative assessment and preparation; ii) medications; iii) techniques and algorithms; iv) identification and treatment of difficult airways; v) confirmation of tracheal intubation; vi) tracheal extubation, and vii) human factors. Based on these areas, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to formulate the recommendations based on those studies included with consideration of their methodological quality (strong '1' or weak '2' recommendation with high 'A', medium 'B' or low 'C' quality of evidence). In summary, we recommend: 1. Use medical history and physical examination to predict difficult airway management (1C). 2. Ensure adequate level of sedation or general anaesthesia during airway management (1B). 3. Administer neuromuscular blocker before tracheal intubation when spontaneous breathing is not necessary (1C). 4. Use a videolaryngoscope with an age-adapted standard blade as first choice for tracheal intubation (1B). 5. Apply apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in neonates (1B). 6. Consider a supraglottic airway for rescue oxygenation and ventilation when tracheal intubation fails (1B). 7. Limit the number of tracheal intubation attempts (1C). 8. Use a stylet to reinforce and preshape tracheal tubes when hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades are used and when the larynx is anatomically anterior (1C). 9. Verify intubation is successful with clinical assessment and end-tidal CO2 waveform (1C). 10. Apply high-flow nasal oxygenation, continuous positive airway pressure or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for postextubation respiratory support, when appropriate (1B).

Non-invasive ventilation in neonates: a review of current literature

Moving from an era of invasive ventilation to that of non-invasive respiratory support, various modalities have emerged resulting in improved neonatal outcomes. Respiratory distress is the commonest problem seen both in preterm and term neonates, and the use of appropriate respiratory support could be lifesaving. This article reviews the currently available non-invasive ventilation (NIV) strategies in neonates including nasal continuous positive airway pressure, nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), bi-level CPAP, heated humidified high flow nasal cannula, nasal high-frequency ventilation (NHFV) and non-invasive neutrally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA). Though multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have indicated the superiority of synchronized NIPPV over the other forms of non-invasive respiratory support in neonates, there is no single NIV modality that universally suits all. Hence, the choice of NIV for a neonate should be individualized based on its efficacy, the disease pathology, resource settings, the clinician's familiarity and parental values. Future studies should evaluate emerging modalities such as NIV-NAVA and NHFV in the respiratory management of neonates as the evidence pertaining to these is insufficient.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation as primary respiratory support in infants of ≥ 32 weeks gestational age (GA): study protocol for a three-arm multi-center randomized controlled trial

BackgroundHealth problems in neonates with gestational age (GA) ≥ 32 weeks remain a major medical concern. Respiratory distress (RD) is one of the common reasons for admission of neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) represents a crucial approach to treat RD, and currently, the most used NIV modes in neonatal intensive care unit include high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Although extensive evidence supports the use of NIPPV in neonates with a GA < 32 weeks, limited data exist regarding its effectiveness in neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of HFNC, CPAP, and NIPPV as primary NIV in neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks who experience RD.MethodsThis trial is designed as an assessor-blinded, three-arm, multi-center, parallel, randomized controlled trial, conducted in neonates ≥ 32 weeks’ GA requiring primary NIV in the first 24 h of life. The neonates will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: HFNC, CPAP or NIPPV group. The effectiveness, safety and comfort of NIV will be evaluated. The primary outcome is the occurrence of treatment failure within 72 h after enrollment. Secondary outcomes include death before discharge, surfactant treatment within 72 h after randomization, duration of both noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of oxygen therapy, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, time to achieve full enteral nutrition, necrotizing enterocolitis, duration of admission, cost of admission, air leak syndrome, nasal trauma, and comfort score.DiscussionCurrently, there is a paucity of data regarding the utilization of NIPPV in neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks. This study will provide clinical evidence for the development of respiratory treatment strategies in neonates at GA ≥ 32 weeks with RD, with the aim of minimizing the incidence of tracheal intubation and reducing the complications associated with NIV.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2300069192. Registered on March 9, 2023, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=171491.