首页> 外文期刊>BMC Pediatrics >Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial
【24h】

Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

机译:非侵入式二重奏正负气道压力通风与呼吸窘迫综合征的早产儿的鼻连续正气道压力:随机对照试验

获取原文
           

摘要

The most common cause of respiratory failure in premature infants is respiratory distress syndrome. Historically, respiratory distress syndrome has been treated by intratracheal surfactant injection followed by mechanical ventilation. In view of the risk of pulmonary injury associated with mechanical ventilation and subsequent chronic pulmonary lung disease, less invasive treatment modalities have been suggested to reduce pulmonary complications. 148 neonates (with gestational age of 28 to 34 weeks) with respiratory distress syndrome admitted to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahwaz in 2018 were enrolled in this clinical trial study. 74 neonates were assigned to duo positive airway pressure (NDUOPAP) group and 74 neonates to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) group. The primary outcome in this study was failure of N-DUOPAP and NCPAP treatments within the first 72?h after birth and secondary outcomes included treatment complications. there was not significant difference between DUOPAP (4.1?%) and NCPAP (8.1?%) in treatment failure at the first 72?h of birth (p?=?0.494), but non-invasive ventilation time was less in the DUOPAP group (p?=?0.004). There were not significant differences in the frequency of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), pneumothorax, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), apnea and mortality between the two groups. Need for repeated doses of surfactant (p?=?0.042) in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group. The duration of oxygen therapy in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group (p?=?0.034). Also, the duration of hospitalization in the NDUOPAP group was shorter than that of the NCPAP group (p?=?0.002). In the present study, DUOPAP compared to NCPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72?h of birth, but the duration of non-invasive ventilation and oxygen demand, the need for multiple doses of surfactant and length of stay in the DUOPAP group were less than those in the CPAP group. IRCT20180821040847N1 , Approved on 2018-09-10.
机译:早产儿呼吸衰竭最常见的原因是呼吸窘迫综合征。从历史上看,呼吸窘迫综合征已被腹腔内表面活性剂注射治疗,然后机械通气治疗。鉴于与机械通气和随后的慢性肺肺病相关的肺损伤的风险,已经提出了较少的侵入性治疗方式来减少肺部并发症。 148名新生儿(妊娠期28至34周),呼吸窘迫综合征在2018年艾哈瓦兹举行的艾姆·霍梅尼医院录入艾米姆霍梅尼医院均注册了这项临床试验研究。将74个新生儿分配给Duo正气道压力(Nduopap)组和74个新生儿到鼻连续正气道压力(NCPAP)组。本研究中的主要结果是在出生后的前72℃内的N-Duopap和NCPAP治疗失败,并且在出生后和次要结果包括治疗并发症。 Duopap(4.1?%)和NCPAP(8.1?%)在出生的前72℃的治疗失败中没有显着差异(P?= 0.494),但在Duopap组中的非侵入性通气时间较少(p?= 0.004)。专利导管(PDA),肺炎,脑室出血(IVH)和支气管肺不良(BPD),呼吸暂停和两组死亡率的频率没有显着差异。在Nduopap组中需要重复剂量的表面活性剂(P?= 0.042)显着低于NCPAP组的表面活性剂(P?= 0.042)。 Nduopap组中的氧疗法的持续时间显着低于NCPAP组的持续时间(P?= 0.034)。此外,Nduopap组的住院期间的持续时间短于NCPAP组的持续时间(P?= 0.002)。在本研究中,Duopap与NCPAP相比,在前72次出生时没有减少机械通风的需要,但无侵入性通风和需氧量的持续时间,需要多剂量表面活性剂和留下的长度Duopap组小于CPAP组中的小组。 IRCT20180821040847N1,2018-09-10批准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号