↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Sucking, Swallowing, and Breathing during Bottle-Feeding in Lambs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Effects of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Sucking, Swallowing, and Breathing during Bottle-Feeding in Lambs
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00296
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathalie Samson, Charlène Nadeau, Laurence Vincent, Danny Cantin, Jean-Paul Praud

Abstract

The use of prolonged respiratory support under the form of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is frequent in newborn infants. Introduction of oral feeding under such nasal respiratory support is, however, highly controversial among neonatologists, due to the fear that it could disrupt sucking, swallowing, and breathing coordination and in turn induce cardiorespiratory events. The recent observation of tracheal aspirations during bottle-feeding in preterm infants under nCPAP justifies the use of animal models to perform more comprehensive physiological studies on the subject, in order to gain further insights for clinical studies. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the impact of HFNC and nCPAP on bottle-feeding in newborn lambs, in terms of bottle-feeding efficiency and safety as well as sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination. Eight full-term lambs were instrumented to record sucking, swallowing, and respiration as well as electrocardiogram and oxygenation. Lambs were bottle-fed in a standardized manner during three randomly ordered conditions, namely nCPAP 6 cmH2O, HFNC 7 L/min, and no respiratory support. Results revealed that nCPAP decreased feeding duration [25 vs. 31 s (control) vs. 57 s (HFNC), p = 0.03] and increased the rate of milk transfer [2.4 vs. 1.9 mL/s (control) vs.1.1 mL/s (HFNC), p = 0.03]. No other indices of bottle-feeding safety or sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination were significantly altered by HFNC or nCPAP. In conclusion, our results obtained in full-term newborn lambs suggest that: (i) nCPAP 6 cmH2O, but not HFNC 7 L/min, increases bottle-feeding efficiency; (ii) bottle-feeding is safe under nCPAP 6 cmH2O and HFNC 7 L/min, with no significant alteration in sucking-swallowing-breathing coordination. The present informative and reassuring data in full-term healthy lambs must be complemented by similar studies in preterm lambs, including mild-to-moderate respiratory distress alleviated by respiratory support in order to mimic preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia and pave the way for clinical studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 17%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 22 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,411
of 6,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,791
of 441,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#62
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 441,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.