Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018;113(3):235-241.
doi: 10.1159/000484400. Epub 2018 Jan 23.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Primary Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Primary Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Srinivas Murki et al. Neonatology. 2018.

Abstract

Background: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is the standard noninvasive respiratory support for newborns with respiratory distress. Evidence for high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as an alternative mode of respiratory support is inconclusive.

Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate whether HFNC is not inferior to nCPAP in reducing the need for higher respiratory support in the first 72 h of life when applied as a noninvasive respiratory support mode for preterm neonates with respiratory distress.

Methods: Preterm infants (gestation ≥28 weeks and birth weight ≥1,000 g) with respiratory distress were randomized to either HFNC or nCPAP in a non-inferiority trial. Failure of the support mode in the first 72 h after birth was the primary outcome. Infants failing HFNC were rescued either with nCPAP or mechanical ventilation, and those failing nCPAP received mechanical ventilation.

Results: During the study period, 139 and 133 infants were randomized to the nCPAP and HFNC groups, respectively. The study was stopped after an interim analysis showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the primary outcome between the 2 groups. The treatment failure was significantly higher in the HFNC group (HFNC, n = 35, 26.3%, vs. CPAP, n = 11, 7.9%, risk difference 18.4 percentage points, 95% CI 9.7-27). Among the infants in the HFNC group who had treatment failure (n = 35), 32 were initially rescued with CPAP. The rate of mechanical ventilation in the first 3 and 7 days of life was similar between the 2 groups. Treatment failure was significantly higher in the HFNC group per protocol and also in the subgroups of infants with moderate (Silverman Anderson score, SAS ≤5) or severe respiratory distress (SAS score >5).

Conclusions: When comparing HFNC to nCPAP as a primary noninvasive respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress, HFNC is inferior to nCPAP in avoiding the need for a higher mode of respiratory support in the first 72 h of life.

Keywords: High-flow nasal cannula; Nasal continuous positive airway pressure; Preterm infant; Respiratory distress.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources