This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

C. Anthony Ryan, MB, MRCP(Ire), MRCP(UK), FRCPC; Neil N. Finer, MD, FRCPC; Katherine L. Peters, RN, BScN, MN

Am J Dis Child. 1989;143(10):1196-1198.

Abstract
• A prospective, randomized, crossover trial was performed to compare the efficacy of nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in infants of less than 32 weeks of gestation. Continuous positive airway pressure was delivered at end-expiratory pressures of 4 cm H₂O, while peak pressures of 20 cm H₂O and end-expiratory pressures of 4 cm H₂O were used during nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation at ventilatory rates of 20 breaths per minute. The frequency and extent of apnea and bradycardia during a 6-hour period in a patient receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure were compared with a similar crossover period of nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Although the infants had slightly less frequent episodes of apnea per hour (0.6 ±0.7 vs 0.5 ±0.7) and bradycardia per hour (1.2 ±1.3 vs 0.9 ±1.0) during nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, these differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in the severity of these events as assessed by the duration and fall in transcutaneous oxygen pressure during apnea and heart rate during bradycardia. There were no significant changes in blood gases throughout the study. Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation appears to have no advantages over nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preventing apnea and does not alter gas exchange in infants of less than 32 weeks of gestation.

(AJDC. 1989;143:1196-1198)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Newborn Medicine, Royal Alexandra Hospitals and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication March 27, 1989.

Reprint requests to Department of Pediatrics, 2C.300 WMHCS, 8440-112 St, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2R7 Canada (Dr Ryan).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in the preterm neonate: reducing endotrauma and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia
Hutchison and Bignall
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93:F64-F68.
FULL TEXT  

Neonatal nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation: what do we know in 2007?
Owen et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007;92:F414-F418.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Two Different Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Systems for the Successful Extubation of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants
Stefanescu et al.
Pediatrics 2003;112:1031-1038.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-Based Approach to Change in Clinical Practice: Introduction of Expanded Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use in an Intensive Care Nursery
Jackson et al.
Pediatrics 2003;111:e542-547.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

High-Flow Nasal Cannulae in the Management of Apnea of Prematurity: A Comparison With Conventional Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
Sreenan et al.
Pediatrics 2001;107:1081-1083.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Randomized Trial of Nasal Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation Compared With Continuous Positive Airway Pressure After Extubation of Very Low Birth Weight Infants
Barrington et al.
Pediatrics 2001;107:638-641.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT