OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP), applied immediately after extubation of preterm infants, reduces the incidence of extubation failure and the need for additional ventilatory support, without clinically important adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries on 22 September 2023 using a revised strategy. We searched conference abstracts and the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible trials employed random or quasi-random allocation of preterm infants undergoing extubation. Eligible comparisons were NCPAP (delivered by any device and interface) versus head box oxygen, extubation to room air, or any other form of low-pressure supplemental oxygen. We grouped the comparators under the term no continuous positive airway pressure (no CPAP).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta-analysis, calculating risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. For the primary outcomes that showed an effect, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for clinically important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials (with 726 infants) in the quantitative synthesis of this updated review. Eight studies were conducted in high-income countries between 1982 and 2005. One study was conducted in Chile, which was classified as upper-middle income at the time of the study. All studies used head box oxygen in the control arm. Risk of bias was generally low. However, due to the inherent nature of the intervention, no studies incorporated blinding. Consequently, the neonatal intensive care unit staff were aware of the assigned group for each infant, and we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias. However, we assessed blinding of the outcome assessor (detection bias) as low risk for seven studies because they used objective criteria to define both primary outcomes. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may reduce the risk of extubation failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76; risk difference (RD) -0.17, 95% -0.23 to -0.10; NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 10; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 726 infants; low-certainty evidence) and endotracheal reintubation (RR 0.79, 95% 0.64 to 0.98; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.01; NNTB 15, 95% CI 8 to 100; I2 = 65%; 9 studies; 726 infants; very low-certainty evidence), though the evidence for endotracheal reintubation is very uncertain. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may have little or no effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.15; 1 study, 92 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported neurodevelopmental outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NCPAP may be more effective than no CPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants if applied immediately after extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation. We are uncertain whether it can reduce the risk of reintubation or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. We have no information on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Although there is only low-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of NCPAP immediately after extubation in preterm infants, we consider there is no need for further research on this intervention, which has become standard practice.