Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Bi-level CPAP does not improve gas exchange when compared with conventional CPAP for the treatment of neonates recovering from respiratory distress syndrome.

AIM: We hypothesised that short-term application of bi-level nasal continuous positive airway pressure CPAP (SiPAP) compared with conventional nasal CPAP (nCPAP) at the same mean airway pressure in infants with persistent oxygen need recovering from respiratory distress syndrome would improve CO2 removal with no change in oxygen requirement.

DESIGN: Non-blinded, randomised, observational four-period crossover study.

SETTING/POPULATION: Level III NICU; low-birthweight infants requiring CPAP and oxygen while recovering from respiratory distress syndrome.

METHODS: Infants requiring nasal CPAP for >24 h prior to study enrolment, and fraction of inspired oxygen requirement (FiO2) of 0.25-0.5, were randomised to either nCPAP or SiPAP. A crossover design with four 1 h treatment periods was used such that each infant received both treatments twice. Oxygen saturations (SaO2), transcutaneous CO2 (tcCO2) and vital signs were monitored continuously. Polysomnographic recordings were analysed for apnoea, bradycardia and oxygen desaturation.

RESULTS: Twenty low-birthweight infants receiving 0.3±0.04% supplemental oxygen on CPAP of 6 cm H2O were studied at an average of 33 days of age (±23 days, SD). There were no differences in tcCO2 or other physiological parameters except mean blood pressure, which was lower during nCPAP (52.3±8.3 vs 54.4±9.1 mm Hg; ±SD; p<0.01). No differences in short or prolonged apnoea, bradycardia or significant desaturation events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS: At similar mean airway pressures, SiPAP does not improve CO2 removal, oxygenation or other studied physiological parameters with the exception of mean blood pressure, which was not clinically significant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01053455.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app