Non-Invasive High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Neonates With Respiratory Distress Syndrome

• Published in: QJM : An International Journal of Medicine Vol. 117; no. Supplement_1
• Main Authors: Gad, Ghada Ibrahim, Salama, Asmaa Ahmed, Amin Ibrahim, Mariam John
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 03.07.2024
• ISSN: 1460-2725; 1460-2393
• DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcae070.503

Abstract Background Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is the main cause of respiratory failure in preterm neonates, its incidence varies from 80% to 25% depending on gestational age. When optimal prenatal care is provided, the best approach to treat RDS, according to several recent trials, consists of providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) from the first minutes of life using short binasal prongs or masks, followed by early selective surfactant administration for babies with worsening oxygenation and/or increasing work of breathing. Any effort must be done to minimize the time under invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) is a new mode of non-invasive ventilation that connects non-invasive circuits to high-frequency ventilators, through which gas exchange is achieved by the superposition of high-frequency oscillation over continuous positive flow. Compared with other non-invasive ventilation modes, nHFOV combines the advantages of nCPAP and high-frequency ventilation, making it more effective at maintaining alveolar stability, eliminating CO2, and limiting barotrauma. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of nasal high frequency oscillatory ventilation in comparison to nCPAP as a primary mode of respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. Methods This randomized controlled trial that was conducted on 90 neonates diagnosed with RDS at the Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs), Ain Shams University Hospitals throughout six months. Results In the current study, there was a significant decrease in FiO2 needs in nHFOV group vs. nCPAP group, the median (IQR) (30% (21 to 37) vs. 31% (30 to 40) respectively, P-value=0.030), but non significant difference in RDS according to total Silverman score in nHFOV group vs. nCPAP group with median (IQR) total Silverman score (4 (4 to 5)vs. 4 (3 to 6) respectively, P-value= 0.474). Conclusion Using nHFOV is better than nCPAP in decreasing the need of FiO2.