Comparison of two nasal prongs for application of continuous positive airway pressure in neonates
- PMID: 12780963
- DOI: 10.1097/00130478-200207000-00007
Comparison of two nasal prongs for application of continuous positive airway pressure in neonates
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have compared the performance of nasal prongs used for applying continuous positive airway pressure. The present study compared the tolerance and efficacy with the Argyle and Hudson nasal prongs. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized clinical study. SETTING: A tertiary neonatal intensive care unit in a university hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 99 preterm infants weighing </=2500 g were assigned to one of three weight categories. They were then randomly assigned to use one of two nasal prong types. The number of times the prongs were out of the nostrils, time on nasal continuous positive airway pressure, respiratory and heart rate, Silverman-Andersen retraction score, blood gases, abdominal distention, nasal hyperemia and bleeding, septum necrosis, pneumothorax, and therapeutic success were documented. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The two groups were matched for weight, gestational age, and disease for which the continuous positive airway pressure was used. For patients weighing 1500-2000 g, the Hudson users had a greater gestational age. Both types of nasal prongs reduced the Silverman-Andersen retraction score in all infants 2 hrs after continuous positive airway pressure application, except for patients weighing </=1000 g. The Argyle prong was related to a higher frequency of hyperemia in babies weighing <1500 g (p =.03). There were no cases of septum necrosis or pneumothorax. The frequency of therapeutic success for patients using Hudson prongs and weighing >/=1500 g was significantly higher than for those using the Argyle catheter (p =.03). CONCLUSION: Considering the difference in gestational age for the patients weighing 1500-2500 g, we conclude that the two prongs tested are equally effective for nasal continuous positive airway pressure, but the Argyle prong is more difficult to keep in the nostrils of active patients, and nasal hyperemia, the first sign of tissue aggression, occurs more frequently among infants using this prong.
Similar articles
-
A randomised controlled trial of two methods of delivering nasal continuous positive airway pressure after extubation to infants weighing less than 1000 g: binasal (Hudson) versus single nasal prongs.Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001 Sep;85(2):F82-5. doi: 10.1136/fn.85.2.f82. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001. PMID: 11517198 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
[Influence of body position on the displacement of nasal prongs in preterm newborns receiving continuous positive airway pressure].Rev Paul Pediatr. 2015 Jul-Sep;33(3):281-6. doi: 10.1016/j.rpped.2015.01.005. Epub 2015 Jun 6. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2015. PMID: 26116326 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
In vitro comparison of nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices for neonates.Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2002 Jul;87(1):F42-5. doi: 10.1136/fn.87.1.f42. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2002. PMID: 12091290 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness and safety of nasal mask versus binasal prongs for providing continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants-A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018 Jul;53(7):987-992. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24014. Epub 2018 Apr 23. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018. PMID: 29687659
-
Nursing Care Guidelines for prevention of nasal breakdown in neonates receiving nasal CPAP.Adv Neonatal Care. 2008 Apr;8(2):116-24. doi: 10.1097/01.ANC.0000317260.99072.ae. Adv Neonatal Care. 2008. PMID: 18418209 Review.
Cited by
-
Masks versus prongs as interfaces for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 14;11(11):CD015129. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015129. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36374241 Free PMC article.
-
Noninvasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: Factors Influencing Weaning Decisions and the Role of the Silverman-Andersen Score.Children (Basel). 2022 Aug 26;9(9):1292. doi: 10.3390/children9091292. Children (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36138599 Free PMC article.
-
'Nasal mask' in comparison with 'nasal prongs' or 'rotation of nasal mask with nasal prongs' reduce the incidence of nasal injury in preterm neonates supported on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP): A randomized controlled trial.PLoS One. 2019 Jan 31;14(1):e0211476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211476. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 30703172 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Protocols and their effects for medical device-related pressure injury prevention among critically ill patients: a systematic review.BMC Nurs. 2024 Jun 17;23(1):403. doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-02080-y. BMC Nurs. 2024. PMID: 38886734 Free PMC article.
-
Effects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure and cannula use in the neonatal intensive care unit setting.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Mar;136(3):287-91. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.15. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010. PMID: 20231649 Free PMC article.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources