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
Review
. 2023 Jul 19;7(7):CD005384.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005384.pub3.

Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants

Brigitte Lemyre  1 , Marc-Olivier Deguise  2   3 , Paige Benson  3 , Haresh Kirpalani  4 , Osayame A Ekhaguere  5 , Peter G Davis  6
Affiliations
Review

Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants

Brigitte Lemyre et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a strategy to maintain positive airway pressure throughout the respiratory cycle through the application of a bias flow of respiratory gas to an apparatus attached to the nose. Early treatment with NCPAP is associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation exposure and might reduce chronic lung disease. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a form of noninvasive ventilation delivered through the same nasal interface during which patients are exposed to short inflations, along with background end-expiratory pressure.

Objectives: To examine the risks and benefits of early (within the first six hours after birth) NIPPV versus early NCPAP for preterm infants at risk of or with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Primary endpoints are respiratory failure and the need for intubated ventilatory support during the first week of life. Secondary endpoints include the incidence of mortality, chronic lung disease (CLD) (oxygen therapy at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age), pneumothorax, duration of respiratory support, duration of oxygen therapy, and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH).

Search methods: Searches were conducted in January 2023 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts. The reference lists of related systematic reviews and of studies selected for inclusion were also searched.

Selection criteria: We considered all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies compared NIPPV versus NCPAP treatment, starting within six hours after birth in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestational age (GA)).

Data collection and analysis: We collected and analyzed data using the recommendations of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.

Main results: We included 17 trials, enrolling 1958 infants in this review. NIPPV likely reduces the rate of respiratory failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.78; risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05; 17 RCTs, 1958 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and needing endotracheal tube ventilation (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.04; 16 RCTs; 1848 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) amongst infants treated with early NIPPV compared with early NCPAP. The meta-analysis demonstrated that NIPPV may reduce the risk of developing CLD compared to CPAP (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 12 RCTs, 1284 infants; low-certainty evidence) slightly. NIPPV may result in little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.10; 17 RCTs; 1958 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of pneumothorax (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; 16 RCTs; 1674 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence), and rates of severe IVH (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.79; 8 RCTs; 977 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: When applied within six hours after birth, NIPPV likely reduces the risk of respiratory failure and the need for intubation and endotracheal tube ventilation in very preterm infants (GA 28 weeks and above) with respiratory distress syndrome or at risk for RDS. It may also decrease the rate of CLD slightly. However, most trials enrolled infants with a gestational age of approximately 28 to 32 weeks with an overall mean gestational age of around 30 weeks. As such, the results of this review may not apply to extremely preterm infants that are most at risk of needing mechanical ventilation or developing CLD. Additional studies are needed to confirm these results and to assess the safety of NIPPV compared with NCPAP alone in a larger patient population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BL was an author of an included study (Kirpalani 2013). This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. She requested data from the study for inclusion in the review (data extracted by the trial statistician, R. Roberts). Roger Soll, Co‐ordinating editor, Cochrane Neonatal assessed RoB and undertook GRADE assessment for this data. R. Soll does not have any interests to disclose at this time.

PB does not have any interests to disclose at this time.

HK was the PI of one of the trials noted in the review (Kirpalani 2013); he did not participate in selecting or abstracting data for this study.

OAE has published review articles that relate to CPAP and NIPPV.

PGD declared an ongoing National Health and Medical Research Council Grant.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study
3
3
Risk of bias graph
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs NCPAP (by population), outcome: 1.1 Respiratory failure
5
5
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs NCPAP (by population), outcome: 1.2 Need for intubation
7
7
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs NCPAP (by population), outcome: 1.3 Mortality during study period
9
9
10
10
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs NCPAP (by population), outcome: 1.4 Chronic lung disease
11
11
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 1: Respiratory failure
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 2: Need for intubation
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 3: Mortality during study period
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 4: Chronic lung disease
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 5: Pneumothorax
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 6: Intraventricular hemorrhage (all grades)
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 7: Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade III/IV)
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 8: Necrotizing enterocolitis (≥ Bell's stage 2)
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 9: Sepsis
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 10: Retinopathy of prematurity (≥ stage 3)
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 11: Duration of hospital stay
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by population), Outcome 12: Duration of oxygen dependence
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by device), Outcome 1: Respiratory failure
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by device), Outcome 2: Need for intubation
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by device), Outcome 3: Mortality
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by device), Outcome 4: Chronic lung disease
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by device), Outcome 5: Pneumothorax
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by device), Outcome 6: Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade III/IV)
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by synchronization), Outcome 1: Respiratory failure
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by synchronization), Outcome 2: Need for intubation
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by synchronization), Outcome 3: Mortality
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by synchronization), Outcome 4: Chronic lung disease
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by synchronization), Outcome 5: Pneumothorax
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3: NIPPV versus NCPAP (by synchronization), Outcome 6: Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade III/IV)
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: NIPPV versus CPAP (socioeconomic status), Outcome 1: Respiratory failure
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4: NIPPV versus CPAP (socioeconomic status), Outcome 2: Need for intubation
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4: NIPPV versus CPAP (socioeconomic status), Outcome 3: Mortality
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4: NIPPV versus CPAP (socioeconomic status), Outcome 4: CLD
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4: NIPPV versus CPAP (socioeconomic status), Outcome 5: Pneumothorax
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4: NIPPV versus CPAP (socioeconomic status), Outcome 6: Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (Gr III/IV)
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5: NIPPV versus CPAP (time to primary outcome ‐ up to 72 hours vs up to 7 days), Outcome 1: Respiratory failure
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5: NIPPV versus CPAP (time to primary outcome ‐ up to 72 hours vs up to 7 days), Outcome 2: Need for intubation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Aguiar 2015 {published data only}
    1. Aguiar T, Macedo I, Voutsen O, Silva P, Nona J, Araujo C, et al. Nasal bilevel versus continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Trials 2015;5(3):1000221. [DOI: 10.4172/2167-0870.1000221] - DOI
Armanian 2014 {published data only}
    1. Armanian AM, Badiee Z, Heidari G, Feizi A, Salehimehr N. Initial treatment of respiratory distress syndrome with nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;5(12):1543-51. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Armanian 2019 {published data only}
    1. Armanian AM, Iranpour R, Parvaneh M, Salehimehr N, Feizi A, Hajirezaei M. Heated humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is not an effective method for initial treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) versus nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2019;24:73. [DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_2_19] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Bisceglia 2007 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Bisceglia M, Belcastro A, Poerio V, Raimondi F, Mesuraca L, Crugliano C, et al. A comparison of nasal intermittent versus continuous positive pressure delivery for the treatment of moderate respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Minerva Pediatrica 2007;59(2):91-5. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Dursun 2019 {published data only}
    1. Dursun M, Uslu S, Bulbul A, Celik M, Zubarioglu U, Bas EK. Comparison of early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 2019;65(4):352-360. [DOI: 10.1093/tropej/fmy058] - DOI - PubMed
Farhat 2018 {published data only}
    1. Farhat AS, Mohammadzadeh A, Mamuri GA, Saeidi R, Noorizadeh S. Comparison of nasal non-invasive ventilation methods in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. Iranian Journal of Neonatology 2018;9(4):53-60. [DOI: 10.22038/ijn.2018.24544.1313] - DOI
Gharehbaghi 2019 {published data only}
    1. Gharehbaghi MM, Hosseini MB, Eivazi G, Yasrebinia S. Comparing the efficacy of nasal continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in early management of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Oman Medical Journal 2019;34(2):99-104. [DOI: 10.5001/omj.2019.20] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Kirpalani 2013 {published data only}
    1. Kirpalani H, Millar D, Lemyre B, Yoder BA, Chiu A, Roberts RS. A trial comparing noninvasive ventilation strategies in preterm infants. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;369(7):611-20. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214533] - DOI - PubMed
Kishore 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sai Sunil Kishore M, Dutta S, Kumar P. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Paediatrica 2009;98(9):1412-5. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01348.x] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Kugelman 2007 {published data only}
    1. Kugelman A, Feferkorn I, Riskin A, Chistyakov I, Kaufman B, Bader D. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled, prospective study. Journal of Pediatrics 2007;150(5):521-6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.01.032] - DOI - PubMed
Lista 2009 {published data only}
    1. Lista G, Castoldi F, Fontana P, Daniele I, Cavigioli F, Rossi S, et al. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised control trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2009;95(2):F85-9. [DOI: 10.1136/adc.2009.169219] - DOI - PubMed
Meneses 2011 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Meneses J, Bhandari V, Alves JG, Herrmann D. Noninvasive ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 2011;127(2):300-7. [DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-0922] - DOI - PubMed
Oncel 2016 {published data only}
    1. Oncel MY, Arayici S, Uras N, Alyamac-Dizdar E, Sari FN, Karahan S, et al. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure versus nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation within the minimally invasive surfactant therapy approach in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2015;101(4):F323-8. [DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308204] - DOI - PubMed
Pan 2021 {published data only}
    1. Pan R, Chen GY, Wang J, Zhou ZX, Zhang PY, Chang LW, et al. Bi-level nasal positive airway pressure (BiPAP) versusnasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for preterm infants with birth weight less than 1500 g and respiratory distress syndrome following INSURE treatment: a two-center randomized controlled trial. Current Medical Science 2021;41:542–7. [DOI: 10.1007/s11596-021-2372-8] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ramanathan 2012 {published data only}
    1. Ramanathan R, Sekar KC, Rasmussen M, Bathia J, Soll RF. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants under 30 weeks gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Perinatology 2012;32(5):336-43. [DOI: 10.1038/jp.2012.1] - DOI - PubMed
Salama 2015 {published data only}
    1. Salama GS, Ayyash FF, Al-Rabadi AJ, Alquran ML, Shakkoury AG. Nasal-IMV versus nasal-CPAP as an initial mode of respiratory support for premature infants with RDS: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Rawal Journal Medical 2015;40(2):197-202. [WEBSITE: www.rmj.org.pk/?mno=173370]
Wood 2013 {published data only}
    1. Wood FE, Gupta S, Tin W, Sinha S. Randomised controlled trial of synchronised intermittent positive airway pressure (SiPAP) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as a primary mode of respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2013;98:A78. [DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304107.182] [URL: https://adc.bmj.com/content/98/Suppl_1/A78.1] - DOI

References to studies excluded from this review

Abyar 2011 {published data only}
    1. Abyar H, Ghafari V, Nakhshab M, Jafari M, Rahimi N, Asadpour S. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in weaning from mechanical ventilation in preterm infants [مقایسه تاثیر دو روش تهویه متناوب از راه بینی )NIMV( و فشار مثبت مداوم راه هوایی از راه بینی )NCPAP( در قطع تنفس مصنوعی نوزادان]. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences 2011;21(84):113-20. [URL: jmums.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-676-en.html]
Aghai 2006 {published data only}
    1. Aghai ZH, Saslow JG, Nakhla T, Milcarek BB, Hart J, Lawrysh-Plunkett R, et al. Synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) decreases work of breathing (WOB) in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). Pediatric Pulmonology 2006;41(9):875-81. [DOI: 10.1002/ppul.20461] - DOI - PubMed
Askari 2018 {published data only}
    1. Askari RA, Kazemian M, Fallahi M, Afjeh SA, Taleghani NT, Sanii S. Comparison of nasal continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation in early respiratory support of very low birth weight infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Journal of Comprehensive Pediatrics 2018;9(2):e66407. [DOI: 10.5812/compreped.66407] - DOI
Bai 2014 {published data only}
    1. Bai XM, Bian J, Zhao YL, Zhang L, Darshana S, Liu ZJ. The application of nasal synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in primary apnea of prematurity. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2014;56(2):150-3. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Baneshi 2014 {published data only}
    1. Baneshi MR, Bahmanbijari B, Mahdian R, Haji-Maghsoodi S, Nikbakht R. Comparison of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatments using parametric survival models. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics 2014;24(2):207-13. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Barrington 2001 {published data only}
    1. Barrington KJ, Bull D, Finer NN. Randomized trial of nasal synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation compared with continuous positive airway pressure after extubation of very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2001;107(4):638-41. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Beaullieu 2019 {published data only}
    1. Beaullieu CC, Duyka B, Khan AM. A comparison of non-invasive ventilation methods used to prevent endotracheal intubation due to apnea in infants less than 30 weeks gestational age. Journal of Investigative Medicine 2019;67:611.
Bhandari 2007 {published data only}
    1. Bhandari V, Gavino RG, Nedrelow JH, Pallela P, Salvador A, Ehrenkranz RA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in RDS. Journal of Perinatology 2007;27(11):697-703. [DOI: 10.1038/sj.jp.7211805] - DOI - PubMed
Bober 2012 {published data only}
    1. Bober K, Swietlinski J, Zejda J, Kornacka K, Pawlik D, Behrendt J, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing effectiveness of two nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices in very-low-birth-weight infants. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2012;13(2):191. [DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182231882] - DOI - PubMed
Chen 2013 {published data only}
    1. Chen X, Peng WS, Wang L, Xu JL, Dong HF, Pan JH. [A randomized controlled study of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics] 2013;15(9):713-7. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Chen 2015 {published data only}
    1. Chen L, Wang L, Li J, Wang N, Shi Y. Noninvasive ventilation for preterm twin neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Scientific Reports 2015;5:14483. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
CTRI/2018/01/011116 {unpublished data only}
    1. CTRI/2018/01/011116. Comparison of nasal continuous positive pressure versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants on the need for intubation in minimally invasive surfactant therapy approach. https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=20486&EncHi... (first received 02 January 2018). [CENTRAL: CN-01897514]
El‐Farrash 2021 {published data only}
    1. El-Farrash RA, DiBlasi RM, AbdEL-Aziz EA, El-Tahry AM, Eladawy MS, Tadros MA, et al. Postextubation noninvasive ventilation in respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Perinatology 2021;23:23. [DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1723999] - DOI - PubMed
Estay 2020 {published data only}
    1. Estay AS, Mariani GL, Alvarez CA, Milet B, Agost D, Avila CP, et al. Randomized controlled trial of nonsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal CPAP after extubation of VLBW infants. Neonatology 2020;117:193-9. [DOI: 10.1159/000506164] - DOI - PubMed
Friedlich 1999 {published data only}
    1. Friedlich P, Lecart C, Posen R, Ramicone E, Chan L, Ramanathan R. A randomized trial of nasopharyngeal-synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasopharyngeal continuous positive airway pressure in very low birth weight infants following extubation. Journal of Perinatology 1999;19(6 Pt 1):413-8. [DOI: 10.1038/sj.jp.7200205] - DOI - PubMed
Gao 2010 {published data only}
    1. Gao WW, Tan SZ, Chen YB, Zhang Y, Wang Y. Randomized trial of nasal synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics] 2010;12(7):524-6. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Gao 2014 {published data only}
    1. Gao X, Yang B, Hei M, Cui X, Wang J, Zhou G, et al. Application of three kinds of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation as a primary mode of ventilation in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Zhonghua Dang Er Ke Za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics] 2014;52(1):34-40. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Gizzi 2015 {published data only}
    1. Gizzi C, Montecchia F, Panetta V, Castellano C, Mariani C, Campelli M, et al. Is synchronised NIPPV more effective than NIPPV and NCPAP in treating apnoea of prematurity (AOP)? A randomised cross-over trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2015;100(1):F17-23. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Herber‐Jonat 2006 {published data only}
    1. Herber-Jonat S, Rieger-Fackeldey E, Hummler H, Schulze A. Adaptive mechanical backup ventilation for preterm infants on respiratory assist modes - a pilot study. Intensive Care Medicine 2006;32(2):302-8. [DOI: 10.1007/s00134-005-0003-7] - DOI - PubMed
Jasani 2016 {published data only}
    1. Jasani B, Nanavati R, Kabra N, Rajdeo S, Bhandari V. Comparison of non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as post-extubation respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Maternal and Fetal Medicine 2016;29(10):1546-51. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Kahramaner 2014 {published data only}
    1. Kahramaner Z, Erdemir A, Turkoglu E, Cosar H, Sutcuoglu S, Ozer EA. Unsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants after extubation. Journal of Maternal and Fetal Neonatal Medicine 2014;27(9):926-9. [DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.846316] - DOI - PubMed
Khalaf 2001 {published data only}
    1. Khalaf MN, Brodsky N, Hurley J, Bhandari V. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as mode of extubation. Pediatric Research 1999;45:204a. - PubMed
    1. Khalaf MN, Brodsky N, Hurley J, Bhandari V. A prospective randomized, controlled trial comparing synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as modes of extubation. Pediatrics 2001;108(1):13-7. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Khorana 2008 {published data only}
    1. Khorana M, Paradeevisut H, Sangtawesin V, Kanjanapatanakul W, Chotigeat U, Ayutthaya JK. A randomized trial of non-synchronized nasopharyngeal intermittent mandatory ventilation (nsNIMV) vs. nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the prevention of extubation failure in preterm under 1500 grams. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2008;91(3):S136-42. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Komatsu 2016 {published data only}
    1. Komatsu DF, Diniz EM, Ferraro AA, Ceccon ME, Vaz FA. Randomized controlled trial comparing nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in premature infants after tracheal extubation. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 2016;62(6):568-74. [DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.62.06.568] - DOI - PubMed
Kong 2012 {published data only}
    1. Kong LK, Kong XY, Li LH, Dong JY, Shang MX, Chi JH, et al. Comparative study on application of Duo positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics] 2012;14(12):888-92. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Kugelman 2014a {published data only}
    1. Kugelman A, Riskin A, Said W, Shoris I, Mor F, Bader D. A randomized pilot study comparing heated humidified high-flow nasal cannulae with NIPPV for RDS. Pediatric Pulmonology 2015;50(6):576-83. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Lee 2020 {published data only}
    1. Lee MJ, Choi EK, Park KH, Shin J, Choi BM. Effectiveness of nCPAP for moderate preterm infants compared to BiPAP: a randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial. Pediatrics International 2020;62(1):59-64. [DOI: 10.1111/ped.14061] - DOI - PubMed
Li 2021 {published data only}
    1. Li Y, Wei Q, Zhao D, Mo Y, Yao L, Li L, et al. Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterm infants after extubation: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of International Medical Research 2021;49(2):1-13. [DOI: 10.1177/0300060520984915] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lin 1998 {published data only}
    1. Lin CH, Wang ST, Lin YJ, Yeh TF. Efficacy of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in treating apnea of prematurity. Pediatric Pulmonology 1998;26(5):349-53. [DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0496(199811)26:5&lt;349::aid-ppul8&gt;3.0.co;2-7] - DOI - PubMed
Lin 2011 {published data only}
    1. Lin XZ, Zheng Z, Lin YY, Lai JD, Li YD. [Nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation for the treatment of apnea in preterm infants]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics] 2011;13(10):783-6. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Liu 2003 {published data only}
    1. Liu T, Tong F, Du LZ, Shi LP. Clinical observation of variable-flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates with respiratory failure. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Pediatrics] 2003;41(6):473-4. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Lv 2020 {published data only}
    1. Lv X, Zhou M, Wang C, Zhang R, Tian W, Song M. Comparative study on the efficacy of continuous nasal positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure in the treatment of newborn respiratory distress syndrome. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2020;13(6):4235-42. [ISSN: 1940-5901]
Malakian 2021 {published data only}
    1. Malakian A, Aramesh MR, Agahin M, Dehdashtian M. Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. BMC PEDIATRICS 2021;21:301. [DOI: 10.1186/s12887-021-02741-w] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Manjunatha 2019 {published data only}
    1. Manjunatha CM, Kalyanasundaram S, Ibhanesebhor SE, Vigni D, Robertson C. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the use of biphasic positive airway pressure (BiPAP) with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (n-CPAP) following extubation of preterm babies. EC Paediatrics 2019;8(6):525-32.
Manzar 2004 {published data only}
    1. Manzar S, Nair AK, Pai MG, Paul J, Manikoth P, Georage M, et al. Use of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation to avoid intubation in neonates. Saudi Medical Journal 2004;25(10):1464-7. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Migliori 2005 {published data only}
    1. Migliori C, Motta M, Angeli A, Chirico G. Nasal bilevel vs. continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. Pediatric Pulmonology 2005;40(5):426-30. [DOI: 10.1002/ppul.20276] - DOI - PubMed
Millar 2016 {published data only}
    1. Millar D, Lemyre B, , Kirpalani H, Chiu A, Yoder BA, Roberts RS. A comparison of bilevel and ventilator-delivered non-invasive respiratory support. Archives of Diseases in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2016;101(1):F 21-5. [DOI: 10.1093/pch/18.suppl_A.8Ab] - DOI - PubMed
Moretti 2008 {published data only}
    1. Moretti C, Giannini L, Fassi C, Gizzi C, Papoff P, Colarizi P. Nasal flow-synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation to facilitate weaning in very low-birthweight infants: unmasked randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics International 2008;50(1):85-91. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Najafian 2019 {published data only}
    1. Najafian B, Ansari-Benam I, Torkaman M, Khosravi MH. Comparing the efficacy of NCPAP and NIPPV in infants with RDS after extubation; a randomized clinical trial. Razavi International Journal of Medicine 2019;7(2):1-5.
O'Brien 2012 {published data only}
    1. O'Brien K, Campbell C, Havlin L, Wenger L, Shah V. Infant flow biphasic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BP- NCPAP) vs. infant flow NCPAP for the facilitation of extubation in infants' ≤ 1,250 grams: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatrics 2012;12:43. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-12-43] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Pantalitschka 2009 {published data only}
    1. Pantalitschka T, Sievers J, Urschitz MS, Herberts T, Reher C, Poets CF. Randomised crossover trial of four nasal respiratory support systems for apnoea of prematurity in very low birthweight infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2009;94(4):F245-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Ramanathan 2009 {unpublished data only}
    1. Ramanathan R, Sekar K, Rasmussen M, Bhatia J, Soll R. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants <30 weeks' gestation: multicenter, randomized, clinical trial. In: Pediatric Academic Society Annual Meeting. Vol. Oral Presentation. 2009:3212.6.
Ribeiro 2017 {published data only}
    1. Ribeiro SN, Fontes MJ, Bhandari V, Resende CB, Johnston C. Noninvasive ventilation in newborns ≤ 1,500 g after tracheal extubation: randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Perinatology 2017;12:1190-8. [DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602141] - DOI - PubMed
Ryan 1989 {published data only}
    1. Ryan CA, Finer NN, Peters KL. Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation offers no advantages over nasal continuous positive airway pressure in apnea of prematurity. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1989;143(10):1196-8. [DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.1989.02150220094026] - DOI - PubMed
Salvo 2015 {published data only}
    1. Salvo V, Lista G, Lupo E, Ricotti A, Zimmermann LJ, Gavilanes AW, et al. Noninvasive ventilation strategies for early treatment of RDS in preterm infants: an RCT. Pediatrics 2015;135(3):444-51. [DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-0895] - DOI - PubMed
Santin 2004 {published data only}
    1. Santin R, Brodsky N, Bhandari V. A prospective observational pilot study of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) as a primary mode of ventilation in infants ≥ 28 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Journal of Perinatology 2004;24(8):487-93. [DOI: 10.1038/sj.jp.7211131] - DOI - PubMed
Shi 2010 {published data only}
    1. Shi Y, Tang S, Zhao J, Hu Z, Li T. Efficiency of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure on neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Acta Academiae Medicinae Militaris Tertiae 2010;32(18):1991-3.
Shi 2014 {published data only}
    1. Shi Y, Tang S, Zhao J, Shen J. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of NIPPV versus nCPAP in preterm and term infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatric Pulmonology 2014;49(7):673-8. [DOI: 10.1002/ppul.22883] - DOI - PubMed
Silveira 2015 {published data only}
    1. Silveira CS, Leonardi KM, Melo AP, Zaia JE, Brunherotti MA. Response of preterm infants to 2 noninvasive ventilatory support systems: nasal CPAP and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Respiratory Care 2015;60(12):1772-6. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Skariah 2019 {published data only}
    1. Sasi A, Skariah T, Lewis L. Early nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in infants 28 to 36 weeks gestation - a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2013;49(Suppl 2):34-5.
    1. Skariah TA, Lewis LE. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in infants of 28-36 weeks gestational age: a randomized controlled trial. Iranian Journal of Neonatology 2019;10(2):1-8. [DOI: 10.22038/IJN.2018.32566.1454] - DOI
Victor 2016 {published data only}
    1. Victor S, Roberts SA, Mitchell S, Aziz H, Lavender T, on behalf of the Extubate Trial Group. Biphasic positive airway pressure or continuous positive airway pressure: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2016;138(2):e20154095. [DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-4095] - DOI - PubMed
Yllescas‐Medrano 2004 {published data only}
    1. Yllescas E, Garcia MG, Martinez H, Guzman LA, Hernandez G, Cordero G, et al. Intermittent positive pressure using nasopharyngeal ventilation as a method to assist extubation among newborn infants less than 1500 grams [Ventilación nasofaríngea con presión positiva intermitente como método de extubación en recién nacidos pretérmino menores de 1,500 g]. Pediatric Research 2004;55:137.
Yuan 2021 {published data only}
    1. Yuan G, Liu H, Wu Z, Chen X. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of three non-invasive ventilation methods in the initial treatment of premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2021;14(2):1065-76. [ISSN: 1940-5901/IJCEM0116814]
Zhou 2015 {published data only}
    1. Zhou B, Zhai JF, Jiang HX, Liu Y, Jin B, Zhang YY, et al. Usefulness of DuoPAP in the treatment of very low birth weight preterm infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2015;19(4):573-7. [PMID: ] - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Cetinkaya 2018 {published data only}
    1. Cetinkaya M, Semerci SY, Kurnaz D, Saglam O, Cebeci B. Comparison of three different non-invasive ventilation modes in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: prospective randomized study. Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine 2018;11:227-8. [URL: https://www.jnpm.org/content/abstracts-26th-european-workshop-neonatolog...]
Deng 2022 {published data only}
    1. Deng X, Cao H, Zhang C, Yang H, Shi Y, Li F et al. Bi-PAP is not superior to NCPAP in the premature twins with respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective cohort study. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology 2022;49(4):84. [DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog4904084] - DOI
Esmaeilnia 2016 {published data only}
    1. Esmaeilnia T, Nayeri F, Taheritafti R, Shariat M, Moghimpour-Bijani F. Comparison of complications and efficacy of NIPPV and nasal CPAP in preterm infants with RDS. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics 2016;2:e2352. [DOI: 10.5812/ijp.2352] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Fu 2014 {published data only}
    1. Fu CH, Xia SW. Clinical application of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in initial treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics] 2014;16(5):460-4. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Gomez 2017 {published data only}
    1. Gomez AK, Weerasekara M, Wickramaarachchi P, Prathapasinghe K, Wickramanayaka A. Comparison of continuous positive airway pressure and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation as modes of non-invasive respiratory support for neonates in a level III neonatal intensive care unit. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health 2017;47:242-8. [DOI: 10.4038/sljch.v47i3.8547] - DOI
Öktem 2021 {published data only}
    1. Öktem A, Yiğit Ş, Çelik HT, Yurdakök M. Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratory support techniques as primary respiratory support in preterm infants. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2020;63:23-30. [DOI: 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003] - DOI - PubMed
Ozdemir 2016 {published data only}
    1. Ozdemir SA, Arun Ozer E, Ilhan O, Sutcuoglu S, Tatli MM. Less invasive surfactant administration in very low birth weight infants: NIPPV or NCPAP? European Journal of Pediatrics 2016;175:1743-4.
Ozdemir 2017 {unpublished data only}
    1. Ozdemir SA, Ergon EY, Colak R, Yildiz M, Kulali F, Celik K, et al. Comparison of NIPPV and NCPAP for the management of RDS by using INSURE approach in preterm infants. Journal of Pediatric and Neonatal Individualized Medicine 2017:Abstract 48.
Postoli 2012 {published data only}
    1. Postoli E, Vevecka E, Rapushi E, Petrela E, Tushe E. Bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus biphasic nasal CPAP in preterm newborns with respiratory distress syndrome (preliminary results). Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2012;25:1-115. [DOI: ]
Sabzehei 2018 {published data only}
    1. Sabzehei MK, Basiri B, Shokouhi M, Naser M. A comparative study of treatment response of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure. International Journal of Pediatrics 2018;6:8339-46. [DOI: 10.22038/ijp.2018.31577.2795] - DOI
Sadeghnia 2016 {published data only}
    1. Sadeghnia A, Barekateyn B, Badiei Z, Hosseini SM. Analysis and comparison of the effects of N-BiPAP and Bubble-CPAP in treatment of preterm newborns with the weight of below 1500 grams affiliated with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomised clinical trial. Advanced Biomedical Research 2016;5(3):1-5. [DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.174965] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

ChiCTR1900028092 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR1900028092. Clinical study for multiple ventilation methods on graded respiratory support in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR1900028092 (first received 11 December 2019). [CENTRAL: CN-02435606]
ChiCTR2100045680 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR2100045680. Bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) VS nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) as the initial mode of treatment of twin premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2100045680 (first received 23 April 2021). [CENTRAL: CN-02439183]
ChiCTR2100049622 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR2100049622. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation reduces the need for invasive ventilation in very premature infants: a single-center randomized controlled study. trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2100049622 (first received 7 August 2021). [CENTRAL: CN-02408510]
CTRI/2021/02/031121 {unpublished data only}
    1. CTRI/2021/02/031121. Comparing two methods of giving support to respiratory system of babies born with respiratory distress [Non synchronised non invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure as a primary mode of respiratory support in neonates ( 26-40 weeks) admitted in a tertiary care centre – a randomized controlled trial]. ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=48074 (first received 09 February 2021. [CENTRAL: CN-02239545]
CTRI/2022/09/045661 {published data only}
    1. CTRI/2022/09/045661. Comparison of synchronised non invasive positive pressure ventilation (sNIPPV), non synchronized non invasive positive pressure ventilation(nsNIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure(nCPAP) as a primary mode of respiratory support in preterm neonates(28-34weeks of gestation) with respiratory distress syndrome: a 3-arm randomized controlled study. trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=CTRI/2022/09/045661 (first received 19 September 2022). [CENTRAL: CN-02473290]
Ionov 2019 {published data only}
    1. Ionov O, Kosinova T, Bezlepkina MB, Kirtbaya A, Balashova E, Ryndin A, et al. Non-invasive respiratory support failure in preterm infants: the influence of inspiratory time on the efficienct of bi-level CPAP. Randomised propsective trial. In: Congress of Joint European Neonatal Sciences, Parellel Session 32 -Lung 5 Non- Invasive Respiratory Ventilation Support. Oral Presentation Abstracts. 2019.
NCT03670732 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03670732. CPAP vs. unsynchronized NIPPV at equal mean airway pressure (NICA). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03670732 (first received 14 September 2018). [CENTRAL: CN-01663250]
NCT05137340 {published data only}
    1. NCT05137340. Minimally invasive surfactant administration in two different non-invasive ventilation modes for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in premature infants: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05137340 (first received 30 November 2021). [CENTRAL: CN-02353301]

Additional references

Bayley 1993
    1. Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant Development–II. San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corporation, 2003.
Bell 1978
    1. Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD, Keating JP, Marshall R, Barton L, et al. Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis. Therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Annals of Surgery 1978;187(1):1-7. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Cappelleri 1996
    1. Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, Ferranti SD, Aubert M, Chalmers TC, et al. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? JAMA 1996;276(16):1332-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Dargaville 2016
    1. Dargaville PA, Gerber A, Johansson S, De Paoli AG, Kamlin CO, Orsini F, et al, Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network. Incidence and outcome of CPAP failure in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2016;138(1):e20153985. [DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-3985] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Donn 2006
    1. Donn SM, Sinha SK. Minimising ventilator induced lung injury in preterm infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2006;91(3):226-30. [DOI: 10.1136/adc.2005.082271] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Dreyfuss 1998
    1. Dreyfuss D, Saumon G. Ventilator-induced lung injury: lessons from experimental studies. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1998;157(1):294-323. [DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.157.1.9604014] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Foglia 2019
    1. Foglia EE, Ades A, Sawyer T, Glass KM, Singh N, Jung P, et al, NEAR4NEOS Investigators. Neonatal intubation practice and outcomes: an international registry study. Pediatrics. 2019;143(1):e20180902. [DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-0902] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Garland 1985
    1. Garland JS, Nelson DB, Rice T, Neu J. Increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations in neonates mechanically ventilated with either face mask or nasal prongs. Pediatrics 1985;76(3):406-10. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Gizzi 2015
    1. Gizzi C, Montecchia F, Panetta V, Castellano C, Mariani C, Campelli M, et al. Is synchronised NIPPV more effective than NIPPV and NCPAP in treating apnoea of prematurity (AOP)? A randomised cross-over trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2015;100:F17-23. [PMID: ] - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. GRADEpro GDT. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), accessed 06 January 2022. Available at gradepro.org.
Gregory 1971
    1. Gregory GA, Kitterman JA, Phibbs RH, Tooley WH, Hamilton WK. Treatment of the idiopathic respiratory-distress syndrome with continuous positive airway pressure.. New England Journal of Medicine 1971;284(24):1333-40. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197106172842401] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Helmrath 1970
    1. Helmrath TA, Hodson WA, Oliver TK Jr. Positive pressure ventilation in the newborn infant: the use of a face mask. Journal of Pediatrics 1970;76(2):202-7. [DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(70)80163-9] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). Cochrane, 2017. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.2.
Higgins 2022
    1. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
ICCROP 2005
    1. International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity. The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity revisited. Archives of Ophthalmology 2005;123(7):991-9. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Jobe 2011
    1. Jobe AH. The new bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 2011;23(2):167-72. [DOI: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e3283423e6b] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Kalikkot Thekkeveedu 2017
    1. Kalikkot Thekkeveedu R, Guaman MC, Shivanna B. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a review of pathogenesis and pathophysiology. Respiratory Medicine 2017;132:170-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.10.014] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Kiciman 1998
    1. Kiciman NM, Andréasson B, Bernstein G, Mannino FL, Rich W, Henderson C, et al. Thoracoabdominal motion in newborns during ventilation delivered by endotracheal tube or nasal prongs. Pediatric Pulmonology 1998;25(3):175-81. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Lee 2015
    1. Lee J, Kim HS, Jung YH, Shin SH, Choi CW, Kim EK, et al. Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants: a randomised phase II crossover trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2015;100(6):F507-13. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Lee 2019
    1. Lee BK, Shin SH, Jung YH, Kim EK, Kim HS. Comparison of NIV-NAVA and NCPAP in facilitating extubation for very preterm infants. BMC Pediatrics 2019;19(1):298. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Llewellyn 1970
    1. Llewellyn MA, Tilak KS, Swyer PR. A controlled trial of assisted ventilation using an oro-nasal mask. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1970;45(242):453-9. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Moher 2009
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, TetzlaD J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009;62(10):1006-12. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Moretti 1999
    1. Moretti C, Gizzi C, Papoff P, Lampariello S, Capoferri M, Calcagnini G, et al. Comparing the effects of nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nSIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) after extubation in very low birth weight infants. Early Human Development 1999;56(2-3):166-77. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Morley 1999
    1. Morley C. Continuous distending pressure. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 1999;81(2):F152-6. [DOI: 10.1136/fn.81.2.f152] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Owen 2007
    1. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Davis PG. Neonatal nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation: what do we know in 2007? Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2007;92(5):F414-8. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Owen 2010
    1. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Davis PG. Pressure variation during ventilator generated nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2010;95(5):F359-64. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Owen 2011
    1. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Dawson JA, Davis PG. Effects of non-synchronised nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation on spontaneous breathing in preterm infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2011;96(6):F422-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Owen 2016
    1. Owen LS, Manley BJ. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants: equipment, evidence, and synchronization. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2016;21(3):146-53. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Pantalitschka 2009
    1. Pantalitschka T, Sievers J, Urschitz MS, Herberts T, Reher C, Poets CF. Randomised crossover trial of four nasal respiratory support systems for apnoea of prematurity in very low birthweight infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2009;94(4):F245-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Papile 1978
    1. Papile LA, Burstein J, Burstein R, Koffler H. Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1,500 gm. Journal of Pediatrics 1978;92(4):529-34. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Philip 1975
    1. Philip AG. Oxygen plus pressure plus time: the etiology of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Pediatrics 1975;55(1):44-50. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Ramaswamy 2020
    1. Ramaswamy VV, More K, Roehr CC, Bandiya P, Nangia S. Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Pediatric Pulmonology 2020;55(11):2940-63. [DOI: 10.1002/ppul.25011] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
RevMan Web 2022 [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager Web (RevMan Web). Version 4.12.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2022. Available at revman.cochrane.org.
Ruegger 2021
    1. Ruegger CM, Owen LS, Davis PG. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Clinics in Perinatology 2021;48:724-44. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clp.2021.07.004] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Ryan 1989
    1. Ryan CA, Finer NN, Peters KL. Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation offers no advantages over nasal continuous positive airway pressure in apnea of prematurity. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1989;143(10):1196-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Schmidt 2007
    1. Schmidt B, Roberts RS, Davis P, Doyle LW, Barrington KJ, Ohlsson A, et al, Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity Trial Group. Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity Trial Group. Long-term effects of caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;8:1893-902. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa073679] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Schmölzer 2013
    1. Schmölzer GM, Kumar M, Pichler G, Aziz K, O'Reilly M, Cheung PY. Non-invasive versus invasive respiratory support in preterm infants at birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2013;347:1-8. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f5980] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Schünemann 2013
    1. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors, GWG. GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook Updated October 2013.
Solevåg 2021
    1. Solevåg AL, Cheung PY, Schmölzer GM. Bi-level noninvasive ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neonatology 2021;118(3):264-73. [DOI: 10.1159/000514637] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Stein 2012
    1. Stein D, Howard D. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in neonates weighing <1500 grams: a retrospective analysis. Journal of Pediatrics 2012;160(5):786-9. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Villar 1995
    1. Villar J, Carroli G, Belizán JM. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1995;345(8952):772-6. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Wan 2014
    1. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014;14:135. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Lemyre 2016
    1. Lemyre B, Laughon M, Bose C, Davis PG. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants.. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 12. Art. No: CD005384. [ART. NO.: ] [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005384.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms