Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation(NIPPV) vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Overview

In the past, several studies have compared the effects between nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation(NIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure(NCPAP) on the incidence of intubation in preterm infants, and the results were inconsistent.The purpose of the present study was to compare NIPPV with NCPAP on the need for endotracheal ventilation and subsequent complications

To this day, early use of noninvasive respiratory support strategies has been suggested to be the most effective pathway to reduce those risks. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are two widely used ways of noninvasive ventilation strategies in preterm infant. As compared with invasive ventilation, NCPAP reduces the risks abnormal neurodevelopment. However, there is only 60% success rate of avoiding intubation in the preterm neonate supported with NCPAP. Supplying with an intermittent peak pressure on NCPAP, NIPPV is considered as a strengthened version of NCPAP with increased flow delivery in the upper airway, increased minute volume and functional residual capacity and recruitment of collapsed alveoli, improved stability of the chest wall and reduced asynchrony of thoraco-abdominal movement,which have been proven to be crucial to decrease the incidences of invasive ventilation and death. However, studies have compared the effects between nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation(NIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure(NCPAP) on the incidence of intubation in preterm infants, and the results were inconsistent.

Conditions