17 Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is very common in preterm infants and multiple options are available to support their breathing in the early neonatal course. Non-invasive ventilation has become widely used given the opportunity to avoid intubation, mechanical ventilation and reduce the risk of ventilator-associated lung injury. Non-invasive ventilation includes nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). NCPAP provides one constant pressure throughout the respiratory cycle. NIPPV additionally provides higher-pressure breaths (peak inspiratory pressure – PIP) over the constant baseline pressure. The use of these two modalities has previously been compared in a Cochrane systematic review to better comprehend the favoured option in preterm with RDS. Objectives We re-examine the risks and benefits of NIPPV versus NCPAP when implemented within the first 6 hours after birth, for preterm infants with respiratory distress in this updated Cochrane review. Design/Methods We used the criteria and standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal to conduct a comprehensive literature search for inclusion of all randomized, quasi-randomized trials and cross-over trials fitting our inclusion criteria. Primary endpoints are respiratory failure and the need for intubated ventilatory support during the first week of life. Secondary endpoints included chronic lung disease, length of stay (LOS), pneumothorax, and mortality. We analyzed the included trials using risk ratio (RR), risk difference and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome or an additional harmful outcome for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. Results In this updated systematic review, we screened 1143 studies for the title and abstract screening. 36 studies were retained for full-text review and 8 new trials were added to this update. We re-affirmed the superiority of NIPPV VS CPAP to prevent respiratory failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.75), in reducing the need for intubation (risk ratio RR 0.70, CI 0.60 to 0.82), chronic lung disease (risk ratio RR 0.68, CI 0.50 to 0.92) and LOS (Mean difference -3.05 days, CI -4.92, -1.17). We did not find any difference in the mortality rate or rate of pneumothorax. For most outcomes, the certainty of evidence was graded as moderate or low. Conclusion NIPPV is superior to NCPAP as a primary respiratory support modality for preterm infants with RDS, in preventing respiratory failure and the need for intubation in the first week of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".