Cargando…

Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation

In this randomized controlled trial, nasal high-flow therapy was compared with standard care (no nasal high-flow therapy or supplemental oxygen) in neonates undergoing oral endotracheal intubation at two neonatal intensive care units. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attemp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mathew, Joseph L., Upadhyay, Amit, Gohiya, Poorva
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer India 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9419125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35962657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13312-022-2579-1
_version_ 1784777107351535616
author Mathew, Joseph L.
Upadhyay, Amit
Gohiya, Poorva
author_facet Mathew, Joseph L.
Upadhyay, Amit
Gohiya, Poorva
author_sort Mathew, Joseph L.
collection PubMed
description In this randomized controlled trial, nasal high-flow therapy was compared with standard care (no nasal high-flow therapy or supplemental oxygen) in neonates undergoing oral endotracheal intubation at two neonatal intensive care units. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability (defined as an absolute decrease in the peripheral oxygen saturation of >20% from the pre intubation, baseline level or bradycardia with a heart rate of <100 beats per minute) in the infant. At the time of intubation, infants had a median postmenstrual age of 27.9 weeks and a median weight of 920 g. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included the outcomes of 251 intubations in 202 infants; 124 intubations were assigned to the high-flow group and 127 to the standard-care group. A successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability was achieved in 62 of 124 intubations (50%) in the high-flow group and in 40 of 127 intubations (31.5%) in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 17.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.0 to 29.2), for a number needed to treat of 6 (95% CI, 4 to 17) for 1 infant to benefit. Successful intubation on the first attempt regardless of physiological stability was accomplished in 68.5% of the intubations in the high-flow group and in 54.3% of the intubations in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 15.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.3 to 27.3). The authors concluded that among infants undergoing endotracheal intubation at two Australian tertiary neo-natal intensive care units, nasal high-flow therapy during the procedure improved the likelihood of successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability in the infant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9419125
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer India
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94191252022-08-30 Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation Mathew, Joseph L. Upadhyay, Amit Gohiya, Poorva Indian Pediatr Journal Club In this randomized controlled trial, nasal high-flow therapy was compared with standard care (no nasal high-flow therapy or supplemental oxygen) in neonates undergoing oral endotracheal intubation at two neonatal intensive care units. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability (defined as an absolute decrease in the peripheral oxygen saturation of >20% from the pre intubation, baseline level or bradycardia with a heart rate of <100 beats per minute) in the infant. At the time of intubation, infants had a median postmenstrual age of 27.9 weeks and a median weight of 920 g. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included the outcomes of 251 intubations in 202 infants; 124 intubations were assigned to the high-flow group and 127 to the standard-care group. A successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability was achieved in 62 of 124 intubations (50%) in the high-flow group and in 40 of 127 intubations (31.5%) in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 17.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.0 to 29.2), for a number needed to treat of 6 (95% CI, 4 to 17) for 1 infant to benefit. Successful intubation on the first attempt regardless of physiological stability was accomplished in 68.5% of the intubations in the high-flow group and in 54.3% of the intubations in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 15.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.3 to 27.3). The authors concluded that among infants undergoing endotracheal intubation at two Australian tertiary neo-natal intensive care units, nasal high-flow therapy during the procedure improved the likelihood of successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability in the infant. Springer India 2022-08-27 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9419125/ /pubmed/35962657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13312-022-2579-1 Text en © Indian Academy of Pediatrics 2022 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Journal Club
Mathew, Joseph L.
Upadhyay, Amit
Gohiya, Poorva
Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation
title Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation
title_full Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation
title_fullStr Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation
title_full_unstemmed Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation
title_short Nasal High-Flow Therapy vs Standard Care During Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation
title_sort nasal high-flow therapy vs standard care during neonatal endotracheal intubation
topic Journal Club
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9419125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35962657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13312-022-2579-1
work_keys_str_mv AT mathewjosephl nasalhighflowtherapyvsstandardcareduringneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT upadhyayamit nasalhighflowtherapyvsstandardcareduringneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT gohiyapoorva nasalhighflowtherapyvsstandardcareduringneonatalendotrachealintubation