To compare the effect of heated, humidified, high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) and nasal continuous positive airways pressure (NCPAP) on lung function and mechanics in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) at the same level of retropharyngeal pressure (Prp).Randomised crossover trial.Neonatal intensive care unit, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.20 preterm infants (gestational age: 31±1 wks) with mild-moderate RDS requiring non-invasive respiratory support within 96 h after birth.Infants were exposed to a randomised sequence of NCPAP and HHHFNC at different settings (2, 4 and 6 cmH2O for NCPAP and 2, 4, 6 L/min for HHHFNC) to enable comparison at the same level of Prp.Tidal volume by respiratory inductance plethysmography, pleural pressure estimated by oesophageal pressure, and gas exchange were evaluated at each setting and used to compute breathing pattern parameters, lung mechanics and work of breathing (WOB).A poor linear regression between flow and Prp was found during HHHFNC (Prp=0.3+0.7*flow; r(2)=0.37). Only in 15 out of 20 infants it was possible to compare HHHFNC and NCPAP at a Prp of 2 and 4 cmH2O. No statistically significant differences were found in breathing pattern, gas exchange, lung mechanics and total WOB. Resistive WOB in the upper airways was slightly but significantly higher during HHHFNC (0.65 (0.49;1.09) vs 1.57 (0.85;2.09) cmH2O median (IQR)).Despite differing mechanisms for generating positive airway pressure, when compared at the same Prp, NCPAP and HHHFNC provide similar effects on all the outcomes explored.

Respiratory mechanics during NCPAP and HHHFNC at equal distending pressures.

VENERONI, CHIARA;ZANNIN, EMANUELA;DELLACA', RAFFAELE
2014

Abstract

To compare the effect of heated, humidified, high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) and nasal continuous positive airways pressure (NCPAP) on lung function and mechanics in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) at the same level of retropharyngeal pressure (Prp).Randomised crossover trial.Neonatal intensive care unit, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.20 preterm infants (gestational age: 31±1 wks) with mild-moderate RDS requiring non-invasive respiratory support within 96 h after birth.Infants were exposed to a randomised sequence of NCPAP and HHHFNC at different settings (2, 4 and 6 cmH2O for NCPAP and 2, 4, 6 L/min for HHHFNC) to enable comparison at the same level of Prp.Tidal volume by respiratory inductance plethysmography, pleural pressure estimated by oesophageal pressure, and gas exchange were evaluated at each setting and used to compute breathing pattern parameters, lung mechanics and work of breathing (WOB).A poor linear regression between flow and Prp was found during HHHFNC (Prp=0.3+0.7*flow; r(2)=0.37). Only in 15 out of 20 infants it was possible to compare HHHFNC and NCPAP at a Prp of 2 and 4 cmH2O. No statistically significant differences were found in breathing pattern, gas exchange, lung mechanics and total WOB. Resistive WOB in the upper airways was slightly but significantly higher during HHHFNC (0.65 (0.49;1.09) vs 1.57 (0.85;2.09) cmH2O median (IQR)).Despite differing mechanisms for generating positive airway pressure, when compared at the same Prp, NCPAP and HHHFNC provide similar effects on all the outcomes explored.
ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD. FETAL AND NEONATAL EDITION
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed-2014-ALTIFLUSSI.pdf

Accesso riservato

: Post-Print (DRAFT o Author’s Accepted Manuscript-AAM)
Dimensione 876.62 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
876.62 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Respiratory mechanics during NCPAP and HHHFNC at equal distending pressures_11311-844138_Dellacà.pdf

accesso aperto

: Post-Print (DRAFT o Author’s Accepted Manuscript-AAM)
Dimensione 863.66 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
863.66 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11311/844138
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 53
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 48
social impact