METHODS AND RESULTS : Single-centre randomized controlled trial of patients admitted to the emergency department due to ACPO with hypoxemia and dyspnoea on face mask oxygen therapy. Patients were randomly assigned with a 1:1 ratio to receive hCPAP or HFNC and FiO2 set to achieve an arterial oxygen saturation >94%. The primary outcome was a reduction in respiratory rate; secondary outcomes included changes in heart rate, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, Heart rate, Acidosis, Consciousness, Oxygenation, and Respiratory rate (HACOR) score, Dyspnoea Scale, and intubation rate. Data were collected before hCPAP/HFNC placement and after 1 h of treatment. Amongst 188 patients randomized, hCPAP was more effective than HFNC in reducing respiratory rate [-12 (95% CI; 11-13) vs. -9 (95% CI; 8-10), P
OBJECTIVES: To determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP regardless of respiratory status (started within the first hour of life), reduces the use of mechanical ventilation and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia without any adverse effects in preterm infants.
SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search was run on 6 November 2020 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via CRS Web) and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (under 37 weeks of gestation). We included trials if they compared prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP (started within the first hour of life) in infants with minimal signs of respiratory distress with 'supportive care', such as supplemental oxygen therapy, standard nasal cannula, or mechanical ventilation. We excluded studies where prophylactic CPAP was compared with CPAP along with co-interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, including independent study selection, assessment of trial quality, and extraction of data by two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials (seven from the previous version of the review and one new study), recruiting 3201 babies, in the meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 765 babies, compared CPAP with supportive care, and three trials (2364 babies) compared CPAP with mechanical ventilation. One trial (72 babies) compared prophylactic CPAP with very early CPAP. Apart from a lack of blinding of the intervention, we judged seven studies to have a low risk of bias. However, one study had a high risk of selection bias. Prophylactic or very early CPAP compared to supportive care There may be a reduction in failed treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.74; risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants; very low certainty evidence). CPAP possibly reduces BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.14; 3 studies, 683 infants, moderate certainty evidence); there may be little or no difference in death (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.93; 4 studies, 765 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP may reduce the composite outcome of death or BPD (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 study, 256 infants; low certainty evidence). There may be no difference in pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.16; 3 studies, 568 infants; low certainty evidence), or intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) Grade 3 or 4 (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.37; 2 studies, 486 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Neurodevelopmental impairment was not reported in any of the studies. Prophylactic or very early CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation There was probably a reduction in the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.99; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; 3 studies, 2150 infants; moderate certainty evidence); and death or BPD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was also probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (failed treatment) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; RD -0.50, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.45; 2 studies, 1042 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the incidence of death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence); pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; 3 studies, 2357 infants; low certainty evidence); and IVH Grade 3 or 4 (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39; 3 studies, 2301 infants; moderate certainty evidence). One study in this comparison reported that there was probably little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 976 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP compared with very early CPAP There was one study in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of BPD (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.27; very low certainty evidence). The combined outcome of death and BPD was not reported, and failed treatment was reported but without data. There may have been little to no effect on death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to1.94; 1 study, 72 infants; very low certainty evidence). Intraventricular haemorrhage Grade 3 or 4 and neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported in this study. Pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) was reported in this study, but there were no events in either group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For preterm and very preterm infants, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate prophylactic CPAP compared to oxygen therapy and other supportive care. When compared to mechanical ventilation, prophylactic nasal CPAP in very preterm infants reduces the incidence of BPD, the combined outcome of death and BPD, and mechanical ventilation. There is probably no difference in neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age. When prophylactic CPAP is compared to early CPAP, we are very uncertain about whether there is any difference between prophylactic and very early CPAP. There is no information about the effect of prophylactic or very early CPAP in late preterm infants. There is one study awaiting classification.
OBJECTIVE: This narrative review describes the technical aspects and clinical indications of helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). In addition, we explore the advantages and challenges faced using this device at the Emergency Department (ED).
DISCUSSION: Helmet CPAP is tolerable than other NIV interfaces, provides a good seal and has good airway stability. During Covid-19 pandemic, there are evidences it reduced the risk of aerosolization. The potential clinical benefit of helmet CPAP is demonstrated in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPO), Covid-19 pneumonia, immunocompromised patient, acute chest trauma and palliative patient. Compare to conventional oxygen therapy, helmet CPAP had been shown to reduce intubation rate and decrease mortality.
CONCLUSION: Helmet CPAP is one of the potential NIV interface in patients with acute respiratory failure presenting to the emergency department. It is better tolerated for prolonged usage, reduced intubation rate, improved respiratory parameters, and offers protection against aerosolization in infectious diseases.
METHODS: Non-inferiority randomized, clinical trial involving patients presenting with acute respiratory failure conducted in the ED of a local hospital. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either hCPAP or fCPAP as per the trial protocol. The primary endpoint was respiratory rate reduction. Secondary endpoints included discomfort, improvement in Dyspnea and Likert scales, heart rate reduction, arterial blood oxygenation, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), dryness of mucosa and intubation rate.
RESULTS: 224 patients were included and randomized (113 patients to hCPAP, 111 to fCPAP). Both techniques reduced respiratory rate (hCPAP: from 33.56 ± 3.07 to 25.43 ± 3.11 bpm and fCPAP: from 33.46 ± 3.35 to 27.01 ± 3.19 bpm), heart rate (hCPAP: from 114.76 ± 15.5 to 96.17 ± 16.50 bpm and fCPAP: from 115.07 ± 14.13 to 101.19 ± 16.92 bpm), and improved dyspnea measured by both the Visual Analogue Scale (hCPAP: from 16.36 ± 12.13 to 83.72 ± 12.91 and fCPAP: from 16.01 ± 11.76 to 76.62 ± 13.91) and the Likert scale. Both CPAP techniques improved arterial oxygenation (PaO2 from 67.72 ± 8.06 mmHg to 166.38 ± 30.17 mmHg in hCPAP and 68.99 ± 7.68 mmHg to 184.49 ± 36.38 mmHg in fCPAP) and the PaO2:FiO2 (Partial pressure of arterial oxygen: Fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio from 113.6 ± 13.4 to 273.4 ± 49.5 in hCPAP and 115.0 ± 12.9 to 307.7 ± 60.9 in fCPAP. The intubation rate was lower with hCPAP (4.4% for hCPAP versus 18% for fCPAP, absolute difference -13.6%, p = 0.003). Discomfort and dryness of mucosa were also lower with hCPAP.
CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to the ED with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema or decompensated COPD, hCPAP was non-inferior to fCPAP and resulted in greater comfort levels and lower intubation rate.
METHODS: The patients included in this study were those recently diagnosed with OSA (AHI > 5) and given nCPAP therapy, as well as being referred to a sleep laboratory for an assessment of their sleep disordered breathing. Prior to the start of nCPAP therapy and polysomnography evaluation, patients were asked to complete the validated Quebec sleep questionnaire (QSQ), and their baseline measurements were recorded.
RESULTS: Among the study population, 14.41% (n = 31) had mild OSA with an apnea and hypopnea index of 5 to 14.9 events/h, while 26.97% (n = 58) had moderate OSA and 40% (n = 86) had severe OSA. The overall average apnea and hypopnea index of the study population was 30.24 ± 9.73 events/h; mild OSA patients had an average apnea and hypopnea index of 10.09 ± 2.65 events/h, moderate OSA patients had 21.48 ± 4.40 events/h, and severe OSA patients had 59.16 ± 22.14 events/h. A significant difference was observed between the scores before treatment and after 6 months of therapy in all domains of the QSQ QoL scores (P
OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation). 2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.
SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies. Comparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone We did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison. Comparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices 2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP Two studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. 2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP We included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes. 2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. Comparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited available evidence, we are very uncertain whether any CPAP device is more effective than other forms of supportive care, other CPAP devices, or mechanical ventilation for the prevention and treatment of AoP. The devices used in these studies included two types of variable flow CPAP device: bubble CPAP and ventilator CPAP. For each comparison, data were only available from a single study. There are theoretical reasons why these devices might have different effects on AoP, therefore further trials are indicated.
OBJECTIVES: • To determine if early compared with delayed initiation of CPAP results in lower mortality and reduced need for intermittent positive-pressure ventilation in preterm infants in respiratory distress ○ Subgroup analyses were planned a priori on the basis of weight (with subdivisions at 1000 grams and 1500 grams), gestation (with subdivisions at 28 and 32 weeks), and according to whether surfactant was used ▫ Sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were also planned ○ For this update, we have excluded trials using continuous negative pressure SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 6), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literatue (CINAHL), on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials that used random or quasi-random allocation to either early or delayed CPAP for spontaneously breathing preterm infants in respiratory distress.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We found four studies that recruited a total of 119 infants. Two were quasi-randomised, and the other two did not provide details on the method of randomisation or allocation used. None of these studies used blinding of the intervention or the outcome assessor. Evidence showed uncertainty about whether early CPAP has an effect on subsequent use of intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.38; typical risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.08; I² = 0%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.03; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; I² = 33%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The outcome 'failed treatment' was not reported in any of these studies. There was an uncertain effect on air leak (pneumothorax) (typical RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.04, I² = 0%, 3 studies, 98 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported intraventricular haemorrhage or necrotising enterocolitis. No cases of retinopathy of prematurity were reported in one study (21 infants). One case of bronchopulmonary dysplasia was reported in each group in one study involving 29 infants. Long-term outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All four small trials included in this review were performed in the 1970s or the early 1980s, and we are very uncertain whether early application of CPAP confers clinical benefit in the treatment of respiratory distress, or whether it is associated with any adverse effects. Further trials should be directed towards establishing the appropriate level of CPAP and the timing and method of administration of surfactant when used along with CPAP.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of continuous distending pressure in the form of CPAP on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions; and CINAHL on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were CPAP by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, compared with spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Subgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (greater than or less than 1000 g or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), timing of application (early versus late in the course of respiratory distress), pressure applied (high versus low) and trial setting (tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals; high income compared with low income) MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 322 infants; two studies used face mask CPAP, two studies used nasal CPAP and one study used endotracheal CPAP and continuing negative pressure for a small number of less ill babies. For this update, we included one new trial. CPAP was associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.82; typical risk difference (RD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 4 to 11; I2 = 50%; 5 studies, 322 infants; very low-certainty evidence), lower use of ventilatory assistance (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.02; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 50; I2 = 55%; very low-certainty evidence) and lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83; typical RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.04; NNTB 9, 95% CI 2 to 13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 322 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). CPAP was associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.30; typical RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 7 to 50; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 274 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia, defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 209 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report use of surfactant, intraventricular haemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis and neurodevelopment outcomes in childhood.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants with respiratory distress, the application of CPAP is associated with reduced respiratory failure, use of mechanical ventilation and mortality and an increased rate of pneumothorax compared to spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary. Three out of five of these trials were conducted in the 1970s. Therefore, the applicability of these results to current practice is unclear. Further studies in resource-poor settings should be considered and research to determine the most appropriate pressure level needs to be considered.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine EnCPAP rates in 36 neonatal intensive care units of the Malaysian National Neonatal Registry (MNNR) in 2013, to compare the outcomes of VLBW neonates with and without EnCPAP, and to determine whether the availability of CPAP facilities and unit policies played a significant role in EnCPAP rates.
METHODS: First, a retrospective cohort study was conducted of VLBW neonates born in the hospitals participating in the study without major congenital abnormalities in the MNNR. This was followed by a questionnaire survey of these hospitals focussed on CPAP facilities and unit policies.
RESULTS: Of the 2,823 neonates, 963 (34.1%) received EnCPAP. Amongst EnCPAP neonates significantly fewer deaths were recorded (10.9 vs. 21.7%; p < 0.001), less bronchopulmonary dysplasia was observed (BPD; 8.0 vs. 11.7%; p = 0.002) and fewer mechanical ventilation days were necessary (p < 0.001) than in non-EnCPAP neonates. Logistic regression analysis showed that EnCPAP was significantly associated with a lower mortality (adjusted OR 0.623; 95% CI 0.472, 0.824; p = 0.001) and BPD among survivors (adjusted OR 0.585; 95% CI 0.427, 0.802; p = 0.001). The median EnCPAP rate of the 36 hospitals was 28.4% (IQR 14.3-38.7). Hospitals with CPAP facilities in the delivery suites (p = 0.001) and during transport (p = 0.001) and a policy for EnCPAP (p = 0.036) had significantly higher EnCPAP rates.
CONCLUSION: EnCPAP reduced mortality and BPD in Malaysian VLBW neonates. Resource-strapped developing countries should prioritise the use of this low-cost therapy.