↓ Skip to main content

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003212.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lemyre, Brigitte, Davis, Peter G, De Paoli, Antonio G, Kirpalani, Haresh

Abstract

Previous randomised trials and meta-analyses have shown that nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a useful method for providing respiratory support after extubation. However, this treatment sometimes 'fails' in infants, and they may require endotracheal re-intubation with its attendant risks and expense. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) can augment NCPAP by delivering ventilator breaths via nasal prongs. Older children and adults with chronic respiratory failure benefit from NIPPV, and the technique has been applied to neonates. However, serious side effects including gastric perforation have been reported with older methods of providing NIPPV. Primary objective To compare effects of management with NIPPV versus NCPAP on the need for additional ventilatory support in preterm infants whose endotracheal tube was removed after a period of intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Secondary objectives To compare rates of gastric distension, gastrointestinal perforation, necrotising enterocolitis and chronic lung disease; duration of hospitalisation; and rates of apnoea, air leak and mortality for NIPPV and NCPAP. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 28 September 2015), Embase (1980 to 28 September 2015) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 28 September 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing use of NIPPV versus NCPAP in extubated preterm infants. NIPPV included non-invasive support delivered by a mechanical ventilator or a bilevel device in a synchronised or non-synchronised way. Participants included ventilated preterm infants who were ready to be extubated to non-invasive respiratory support. Interventions compared were NIPPV, delivered by short nasal prongs or nasopharyngeal tube, and NCPAP, delivered by the same methods.Types of outcomes measures included failure of therapy (respiratory failure, rates of endotracheal re-intubation); gastrointestinal complications (i.e. abdominal distension requiring cessation of feeds, gastrointestinal perforation or necrotising enterocolitis); pulmonary air leak; chronic lung disease (oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) and mortality. Three review authors independently extracted data regarding clinical outcomes including extubation failure; endotracheal re-intubation; rates of apnoea, gastrointestinal perforation, feeding intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, chronic lung disease and air leak; and duration of hospital stay. We analysed trials using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. Through the search, we identified 10 trials enrolling a total of 1431 infants and comparing extubation of infants to NIPPV or NCPAP. Three trials had methodological limitations and possible selection bias.Five trials used the synchronised form of NIPPV, four used the non-synchronised form and one used both methods. Eight studies used NIPPV delivered by a ventilator, one used a bilevel device and one used both methods. When all studies were included, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the risk of meeting extubation failure criteria (typical RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.08; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13; 10 trials, 1431 infants) and needing re-intubation (typical RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88; typical RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.05; NNTB 10, 95% CI 7 to 20; 10 trials, 1431 infants). We graded evidence for these outcomes as moderate, as all trial interventions were unblinded. Although methods of synchronisation varied (Graseby capsule or pneumotachograph/flow-trigger), the five trials that synchronised NIPPV showed a statistically significant benefit for infants extubated to NIPPV in terms of prevention of extubation failure up to one week after extubation.Unsynchronised NIPPV also reduced extubation failure. NIPPV provided via a ventilator is more beneficial than that provided by bilevel devices in reducing extubation failure during the first week. When comparing interventions, investigators found no significant reduction in rates of chronic lung disease (typical RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.03) or death, and no difference in the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis. Air leaks were reduced in infants randomised to NIPPV (typical RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; NNTB 33, 95% CI 20 to 100). We graded evidence quality as moderate (unblinded studies) or low (imprecision) for secondary outcomes. Implications for practice NIPPV reduces the incidence of extubation failure and the need for re-intubation within 48 hours to one week more effectively than NCPAP; however, it has no effect on chronic lung disease nor on mortality. Synchronisation may be important in delivering effective NIPPV. The device used to deliver NIPPV may be important; however, data are insufficient to support strong conclusions. NIPPV does not appear to be associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects. Implications for research Large trials should establish the impact of synchronisation of NIPPV on safety and efficacy of the technique and should compare the efficacy of bilevel devices versus a ventilator for providing NIPPV.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 119 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Postgraduate 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Other 14 11%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 45 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Unspecified 9 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 11 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#405,629
of 11,332,834 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,493
of 9,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,380
of 320,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,332,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,064 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.