Comparing of High Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Cpap for Initial Respiratory Stabilisation of Very Premature Infants

Overview

Non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) stabilizes premature newborns, but its optimal pressure is unknown. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an alternative that minimizes trigeminal stimulation but lacks precise pressure control. Initial studies show HFNC's feasibility and effectiveness. This study hypothesizes that HFNC can deliver adequate pressure, reduce the need for positive pressure ventilation, and support safe stabilization of very premature infants. The trial compares the effectiveness and safety of HFNC versus CPAP in the delivery room and during transport to the neonatal intensive care unit in very premature infants. The primary objective is to compare HFNC and CPAP in reducing the need for positive pressure ventilation in very premature infants immediately after birth. The study includes very premature infants delivered between 28+0 and 31+6 weeks gestation in 10 tertiary referral centers (nine in the Czech Republic, one in Slovakia). Approximately 443 patients are required to detect a 15% relative decrease in the need for positive pressure ventilation between trial groups. Centers will be randomized to either CPAP or HFNC at each time period, with parental consent obtained before birth. The primary endpoint is the proportion of neonates requiring positive pressure ventilation within the first 10 minutes post-birth.

Background and Rationale The stabilization of very premature infants (VPIs) immediately after birth is crucial, as their underdeveloped lungs are prone to respiratory distress. Non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is commonly recommended in the delivery room and during transport to the NICU. While CPAP can help maintain airway pressure and support spontaneous breathing, its optimal pressure settings are not yet established. Furthermore, when CPAP pressure is increased for infants who are not breathing spontaneously, it often necessitates positive pressure ventilation (PPV), which may lead to lung injury and increase the risk of complications. CPAP's reliance on a face mask requires frequent adjustments, which can trigger reflexes that may exacerbate bradycardia, potentially destabilizing the neonate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) offers an alternative that reduces direct facial stimulation, thus potentially lowering the occurrence of these reflex-induced events. Preliminary studies suggest that HFNC is both feasible and effective in supporting some premature infants, though HFNC does not provide the precise pressure control seen with CPAP. This study is designed to evaluate if HFNC can provide effective airway pressure for initial lung clearance, decrease the need for PPV, and support safe respiratory stabilization of VPIs immediately after birth. Hypothesis HFNC will reduce upper airway resistance and deliver adequate positive pressure for lung aeration in spontaneously breathing, very immature neonates. Compared to CPAP, HFNC's reduced physical stimulation may decrease the requirement for PPV, promoting a smoother transition to stable lung function and cardiopulmonary stabilization in very preterm infants. Trial Aim This trial aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of HFNC and CPAP in stabilizing severely premature neonates in the delivery room and during transport to the NICU. The primary endpoint is the proportion of neonates requiring PPV within the first 10 minutes post-birth, to determine if HFNC can reduce the need for PPV more effectively than CPAP. Objectives The primary objective is to evaluate whether HFNC can reduce the need for PPV compared to CPAP in very premature infants immediately after birth. Secondary objectives will focus on achieving specific oxygenation and ventilation milestones without PPV, including SpO₂ levels and FiO₂ requirements. Study Design This is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving 10 tertiary perinatal care centers (9 in the Czech Republic, 1 in Slovakia). Participating centers will switch between using HFNC and CPAP during specified time periods. Randomization will determine the order in which each center uses either HFNC or CPAP across six to ten periods of approximately 90 days each.