Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) Vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP) after Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA) in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome

There is insufficient evidence supporting the superiority of the Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) over the Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP) in initial respiratory support of preterm neonates suffering from the Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS). The present study intended to compare the effectiveness of these two approaches in preterm neonates with RDS who receive the Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA).

The present clinical trial included 95 preterm neonates at the Fatemieh Hospital, Hamadan, Iran, from October 2019 to September 2020, with RDS, admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Sampling was performed using the convenience method. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups that received the NIPPV (n=48) or NCPAP (n=47) as the respiratory support method. Moreover, the neonates received LISA if needed. The groups were compared in the outcomes, such as the need for intubation within 72 hours after birth.

The groups were similar in clinical characteristics at birth. According to our findings, the NIPPV group had a significantly lower rate of need for intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation within 72 hours after birth  compared to the control group (8.3% vs. 27.7%, P=0.014); however, the groups were not significantly different regarding the need for the second dose of surfactant (66% vs. 56.2%, P=0.332), the mean respiratory support duration (6.89±3.20 vs. 6.70±3.71 days, P=0.295), the mean hospital stay (19.52±12.364 vs. 17.40±9.57 days, P=0.591), development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (4.2% vs. 8.5%, P=0.435), and mortality (6.25% vs. 12.8%, P=0.317).

Compared to NCPAP, the NIPPV could significantly reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation within 72 hours after birth in neonates undergoing LISA