Klin Padiatr 2010; 222 - GNPI_FV_16
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1261316

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for neonatal respiratory failure: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

Y Shi 1, S Tang 1, J Shen 1, H Li 1
  • 1Pediatrics, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China

Objective To evaluate whether nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) would decrease the requirement for endotracheal ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in preterm and term infants. Methods Prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center study. 101 neonatal infants were randomized into NIPPV group (n=48) and nCPAP group (n=53) between January, 2008 and December, 2008 in a neonatal intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital. The ratio of requirement for endotracheal ventilation and the outcome were investigated. Results Neonates treated with NIPPV and with nCPAP had comparable clinical conditions at study entry. Infants treated initially with NIPPV need less endotracheal ventilation than those treated with nCPAP (23% vs. 38%, p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between NIPPV group and nCPAP group in the ratio of good outcome (94% vs. 87%, p>0.05). Conclusion NIPPV compared with nCPAP decreased the requirement for endotracheal ventilation in neonatal infants with respiratory failure.