CPAP Versus NIPPV Postextubation in Preterm Neonates: A Comparative-Effectiveness Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been shown to be superior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) postextubation in preterm neonates. However, studies have not permitted high CPAP pressures or rescue with other modes. We hypothesized that if CPAP pressures >8 cmH2O and rescue with other modes were permitted, CPAP would be noninferior to NIPPV. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness, noninferiority study utilizing network-based real-world data from 22 Canadian NICUs. Centers self-selected CPAP or NIPPV as their standard postextubation mode for preterm neonates <29 weeks' gestation. The primary outcome was failure of the initial mode ≤72 hours. Secondary outcomes included failure ≤7 days, and reintubation ≤72 hours and ≤7 days. Groups were compared using a noninferiority adjusted risk-difference (aRD) margin of 0.05, and margin of no difference. RESULTS: A total of 843 infants extubated to CPAP and 974 extubated to NIPPV were included. CPAP was not noninferior (and inferior) to NIPPV for failure of the initial mode ≤72 hours (33.0% vs 26.3%; aRD 0.07 [0.03 to 0.12], Pnoninferiority(NI) = .86), and ≤7 days (40.7% vs 35.8%; aRD 0.09 [0.05 to 0.13], PNI = 0.97). However, CPAP was noninferior (and equivalent) to NIPPV for reintubation ≤72 hours (13.2% vs 16.1%; aRD 0.01 [-0.05 to 0.02], PNI < .01), and noninferior (and superior) for reintubation ≤7 days (16.4% vs 22.8%; aRD -0.04 [-0.07 to -0.001], PNI < .01). CONCLUSIONS: CPAP was not noninferior to NIPPV for failure ≤72 hours postextubation; however, it was noninferior to NIPPV for reintubation ≤72 hours and ≤7 days. This suggests CPAP may be a reasonable initial postextubation mode if alternate rescue strategies are available.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".