Objective

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) is an effective therapy for infants in respiratory distress. We here report the safety of a novel, low-cost, non-electric bubble NIPPV device in comparison with bubble NCPAP.

Study design

At Paramitha Children’s Hospital (Hyderabad, India), preterm (n = 60) neonates with moderate respiratory distress were pragmatically allocated to bubble NCPAP (5–8 cm H₂O) or bubble NIPPV (P_high 8–12 cm H₂O/P_low 5–8 cm H₂O) based on staff and equipment availability. Primary outcomes to assess safety included clinically relevant pneumothorax, nasal septal necrosis, or abdominal distention.

Results

One patient in each arm developed minor nasal septal injury (grade 3 on NCPAP, grade 2 on NIPPV); no patients in either arm developed a clinically significant pneumothorax or abdominal distention.

Conclusion

The similar rates of nasal septal injury, pneumothorax and abdominal distention suggest that bubble NIPPV has a similar safety profile as bubble NCPAP for preterm infants in respiratory distress.

中文翻译：

---

气泡鼻间歇正压通气 (NIPPV) 与气泡鼻持续气道正压通气 (NCPAP) 在呼吸窘迫早产儿中的安全性

客观的

经鼻间歇正压通气（NIPPV）是治疗呼吸窘迫婴儿的有效方法。我们在这里报告了一种新型、低成本、非电气泡 NIPPV 装置与气泡 NCPAP 相比的安全性。

学习规划

在帕拉米萨儿童医院（印度海得拉巴），患有中度呼吸窘迫的早产儿 ( n  = 60) 被实际分配至气泡式 NCPAP (5–8 cm H ₂ O) 或气泡式 NIPPV（P_高8–12 cm H ₂ O/ P_低5–8 cm H ₂ O）取决于人员和设备的可用性。评估安全性的主要结局包括临床相关气胸、鼻中隔坏死或腹胀。

结果

每组各有一名患者出现轻微鼻中隔损伤（NCPAP 3 级，NIPPV 2 级）；两组患者均未出现有临床意义的气胸或腹胀。

结论

鼻中隔损伤、气胸和腹胀的发生率相似，表明对于呼吸窘迫的早产儿，气泡式 NIPPV 与气泡式 NCPAP 具有相似的安全性。