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
. 2023 Oct 6;24(1):647.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07665-7.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation as primary respiratory support in infants of ≥ 32 weeks gestational age (GA): study protocol for a three-arm multi-center randomized controlled trial

Affiliations

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation as primary respiratory support in infants of ≥ 32 weeks gestational age (GA): study protocol for a three-arm multi-center randomized controlled trial

Rong Zhou et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Health problems in neonates with gestational age (GA) ≥ 32 weeks remain a major medical concern. Respiratory distress (RD) is one of the common reasons for admission of neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) represents a crucial approach to treat RD, and currently, the most used NIV modes in neonatal intensive care unit include high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Although extensive evidence supports the use of NIPPV in neonates with a GA < 32 weeks, limited data exist regarding its effectiveness in neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of HFNC, CPAP, and NIPPV as primary NIV in neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks who experience RD.

Methods: This trial is designed as an assessor-blinded, three-arm, multi-center, parallel, randomized controlled trial, conducted in neonates ≥ 32 weeks' GA requiring primary NIV in the first 24 h of life. The neonates will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: HFNC, CPAP or NIPPV group. The effectiveness, safety and comfort of NIV will be evaluated. The primary outcome is the occurrence of treatment failure within 72 h after enrollment. Secondary outcomes include death before discharge, surfactant treatment within 72 h after randomization, duration of both noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of oxygen therapy, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, time to achieve full enteral nutrition, necrotizing enterocolitis, duration of admission, cost of admission, air leak syndrome, nasal trauma, and comfort score.

Discussion: Currently, there is a paucity of data regarding the utilization of NIPPV in neonates with GA ≥ 32 weeks. This study will provide clinical evidence for the development of respiratory treatment strategies in neonates at GA ≥ 32 weeks with RD, with the aim of minimizing the incidence of tracheal intubation and reducing the complications associated with NIV.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2300069192. Registered on March 9, 2023, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=171491 .

Keywords: Continuous positive airway pressure; High-flow nasal cannula; Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation; Neonates; Noninvasive ventilation; Randomised controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The schedule of recruitment, interventions, and assessments. t1: immediately after randomisation; t2: 72 h after randomisation; t3: after weaning or failure of allocated treatment; t4: first hospital discharge; RD: respiratory distress; HFNC: high-flow nasal cannula; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; NIPPV: nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation; MV: mechanical ventilation; BPD: bronchopulmonary dysplasia; NEC: necrotizing enterocolitis; N-PASS: Neonatal Pain, Agitation and Sedation Scale
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram of the study

Similar articles

References

    1. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller A-B, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–2172. - PubMed
    1. Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller A-B, Lumbiganon P, Petzold M, Hogan D, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(1):e37–e46. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ersch J, Roth-Kleiner M, Baeckert P, Bucher HU. Increasing incidence of respiratory distress in neonates. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(11):1577–1581. - PubMed
    1. Bricelj K, Tul N, Lasic M, Bregar AT, Verdenik I, Lucovnik M, et al. Respiratory morbidity in twins by birth order, gestational age and mode of delivery. J Perinat Med. 2016;44(8):899–902. - PubMed
    1. Hibbard JU, Wilkins I, Sun L, Gregory K, Haberman S, Hoffman M, et al. Respiratory morbidity in late preterm births. JAMA. 2010;304(4):419–425. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources