Non-invasive ventilation in premature infants

Abstract

Non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants traditionally consisted of the application of continuous distending positive pressure at the nose. More recently, the continuous distending pressure has been combined with intermittent positive pressure cycles using conventional ventilators or devices developed specifically for this purpose. One of the common terms used to refer to these modalities is nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). These modalities or devices vary depending on the peak pressure of each cycle, how fast it rises, the duration of the cycle and cycling frequency and whether the positive pressure cycle can be synchronised to the spontaneous inspiration. The mechanisms of action, benefits and limitations of the different devices, modalities and/or applied settings have not been fully explored. Three separate studies sought to improve the understanding of some of these modalities of respiratory support. 1-3Bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) has been proposed as a way to provide higher mean airway pressure (MAP) without the possible side effects of a continuously high distending pressure while the infant is able to breathe at both pressure levels. Lampland et al tested the hypothesis that applying BiPAP without increasing MAP would improve gas exchange compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). Twenty preterm infants of median gestational age (GA) of 26 weeks and 33 days old were crossed over twice between NCPAP and BiPAP for 1 h each. During BiPAP, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and peak pressure were adjusted to provide a minimum Δ pressure of 3 cm H 2 O for 1 s at a rate of 20/min and match the MAP to the NCPAP level of 6 cm H 2 O. These investigators found arterial oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ), fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ), transcutaneous CO 2 tension (TcPCO 2 ), respiratory rate (RR) and frequency of apnoea, bradycardia or hypoxaemia spells did not differ between NCPAP and BiPAP. These findings differ from those obtained in a similar study where BiPAP provided higher MAP than NCPAP. 4 This difference in results suggests the gains achieved by the relatively small Δ pressure cycles might have been counteracted by the lower PEEP during BiPAP. It is unknown if cycles with a larger Δ pressure or a longer duration would have achieved different effects. The lack of effect may also be because these infants were already stable on NCPAP and thus did not need the additional support.Another proposed benefit of BiPAP is that the positive pressure cycle would improve tidal volume (VT) or facilitate its generation by assisting every spontaneous inspiration. This requires synchronising the BiPAP cycle to the onset of the spontaneous inspiration. Owen et al assessed the synchronisation achieved by a BiPAP device using the Graseby pressure capsule applied on the infant's abdomen and its effects on VT and the backup ventilation provided during apnoea. Ten premature infants of 26 weeks GA were studied at a mean age of 29 days. Thirty-minute record...

Bi-Level Noninvasive Ventilation in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…T high 0.6-1.0 s and rates of 10-30/min are frequently used. It has been speculated that BiPAP treatment might provide a higher MAP without potential side effects of a high continuous distending pressure [14]. However, it is controversial whether a high continuous distending pressure may cause harm [15].…”

Comparison of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and bubble CPAP with an in‐line high‐frequency interrupter in a premature infant lung model

“…5 While NIPPV may be an improvement over NCPAP, one persistent problem is the inability of the device to easily synchronize to the patient's respiratory cycle. 6 This difficulty arises from the inability of flow sensors to dependably detect inspiratory effort through a noninvasive interface. Newer technologies, such as neural adjusted ventilator assist (NAVA), which synchronizes NIPPV by detecting electrical discharges from diaphragmatic contractions, have been developed to circumvent this limitation.…”

“…While NIPPV may be an improvement over NCPAP, one persistent problem is the inability of the device to easily synchronize to the patient's respiratory cycle 6 . This difficulty arises from the inability of flow sensors to dependably detect inspiratory effort through a noninvasive interface.…”