Cargando…

Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis

Objective: Respiratory support for stabilizing very preterm infants at birth varies between centers. We retrospectively compared two strategies that involved either increasing continuous positive airway pressures (CPAP), or increasing oxygen supplementation. Methods: Matched-pairs of infants (<28...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martherus, Tessa, Oberthuer, André, Dekker, Janneke, Kirchgaessner, Christoph, van Geloven, Nan, Hooper, Stuart B., Kribs, Angela, te Pas, Arjan B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6362425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30761276
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00003
_version_ 1783392914464833536
author Martherus, Tessa
Oberthuer, André
Dekker, Janneke
Kirchgaessner, Christoph
van Geloven, Nan
Hooper, Stuart B.
Kribs, Angela
te Pas, Arjan B.
author_facet Martherus, Tessa
Oberthuer, André
Dekker, Janneke
Kirchgaessner, Christoph
van Geloven, Nan
Hooper, Stuart B.
Kribs, Angela
te Pas, Arjan B.
author_sort Martherus, Tessa
collection PubMed
description Objective: Respiratory support for stabilizing very preterm infants at birth varies between centers. We retrospectively compared two strategies that involved either increasing continuous positive airway pressures (CPAP), or increasing oxygen supplementation. Methods: Matched-pairs of infants (<28 weeks of gestation) were born either at the Leiden University Medical Center [low-pressure: CPAP 5–8 cmH(2)O and/or positive pressure ventilation (PPV) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) 0.3–1.0; n = 27], or at the University Hospital of Cologne (high-pressure: CPAP 12–35 cmH(2)O, no PPV and FiO(2) 0.3–0.4; n = 27). Respiratory support was initiated non-invasively via facemask at both units. Infants (n = 54) were matched between centers for gestational age and birth weight, to compare physiological and short-term clinical outcomes. Results: In the low-pressure group, 20/27 (74%) infants received 1–2 sustained inflations (20, 25 cm H(2)O) and 22/27 (81%) received PPV (1:19–3:01 min) using pressures of 25–27 cm H(2)O. Within 3 min of birth [median (IQR)], mean airway pressures [12 (6–15) vs. 19 (16–23) cmH(2)O, p < 0.001] and FiO(2) [0.30 (0.28–0.31) vs. 0.22 (0.21–0.30), p < 0.001] were different in low- vs. high-pressure groups, respectively. SpO(2) and heart rates were similar. After 3 min, higher FiO(2) levels [0.62 (0.35–0.98) vs. 0.28 (0.22–0.38), p = 0.005] produced higher SpO(2) levels [77 (50–92) vs. 53 (42–69)%, p < 0.001] in the low-pressure group, but SpO(2)/FiO(2) and heart rates were similar. While intubation rates during admission were significantly different (70 vs. 30%, p = 0.013), pneumothorax rates (4 vs. 19%, p = 0.125) and the occurrence of spontaneous intestinal perforations (0 vs. 15%, p = 0.125) were similar between groups. Conclusion: Infants (<28 weeks) can be supported non-invasively at birth with either higher or lower pressures and while higher-pressure support may require less oxygen, it does not eliminate the need for oxygen supplementation. Future studies need to examine the effect of high pressures and pressure titration in the delivery room.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6362425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63624252019-02-13 Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis Martherus, Tessa Oberthuer, André Dekker, Janneke Kirchgaessner, Christoph van Geloven, Nan Hooper, Stuart B. Kribs, Angela te Pas, Arjan B. Front Pediatr Pediatrics Objective: Respiratory support for stabilizing very preterm infants at birth varies between centers. We retrospectively compared two strategies that involved either increasing continuous positive airway pressures (CPAP), or increasing oxygen supplementation. Methods: Matched-pairs of infants (<28 weeks of gestation) were born either at the Leiden University Medical Center [low-pressure: CPAP 5–8 cmH(2)O and/or positive pressure ventilation (PPV) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) 0.3–1.0; n = 27], or at the University Hospital of Cologne (high-pressure: CPAP 12–35 cmH(2)O, no PPV and FiO(2) 0.3–0.4; n = 27). Respiratory support was initiated non-invasively via facemask at both units. Infants (n = 54) were matched between centers for gestational age and birth weight, to compare physiological and short-term clinical outcomes. Results: In the low-pressure group, 20/27 (74%) infants received 1–2 sustained inflations (20, 25 cm H(2)O) and 22/27 (81%) received PPV (1:19–3:01 min) using pressures of 25–27 cm H(2)O. Within 3 min of birth [median (IQR)], mean airway pressures [12 (6–15) vs. 19 (16–23) cmH(2)O, p < 0.001] and FiO(2) [0.30 (0.28–0.31) vs. 0.22 (0.21–0.30), p < 0.001] were different in low- vs. high-pressure groups, respectively. SpO(2) and heart rates were similar. After 3 min, higher FiO(2) levels [0.62 (0.35–0.98) vs. 0.28 (0.22–0.38), p = 0.005] produced higher SpO(2) levels [77 (50–92) vs. 53 (42–69)%, p < 0.001] in the low-pressure group, but SpO(2)/FiO(2) and heart rates were similar. While intubation rates during admission were significantly different (70 vs. 30%, p = 0.013), pneumothorax rates (4 vs. 19%, p = 0.125) and the occurrence of spontaneous intestinal perforations (0 vs. 15%, p = 0.125) were similar between groups. Conclusion: Infants (<28 weeks) can be supported non-invasively at birth with either higher or lower pressures and while higher-pressure support may require less oxygen, it does not eliminate the need for oxygen supplementation. Future studies need to examine the effect of high pressures and pressure titration in the delivery room. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6362425/ /pubmed/30761276 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00003 Text en Copyright © 2019 Martherus, Oberthuer, Dekker, Kirchgaessner, van Geloven, Hooper, Kribs and te Pas. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pediatrics
Martherus, Tessa
Oberthuer, André
Dekker, Janneke
Kirchgaessner, Christoph
van Geloven, Nan
Hooper, Stuart B.
Kribs, Angela
te Pas, Arjan B.
Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis
title Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis
title_full Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis
title_short Comparison of Two Respiratory Support Strategies for Stabilization of Very Preterm Infants at Birth: A Matched-Pairs Analysis
title_sort comparison of two respiratory support strategies for stabilization of very preterm infants at birth: a matched-pairs analysis
topic Pediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6362425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30761276
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00003
work_keys_str_mv AT martherustessa comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis
AT oberthuerandre comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis
AT dekkerjanneke comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis
AT kirchgaessnerchristoph comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis
AT vangelovennan comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis
AT hooperstuartb comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis
AT kribsangela comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis
AT tepasarjanb comparisonoftworespiratorysupportstrategiesforstabilizationofverypreterminfantsatbirthamatchedpairsanalysis