'Nasal mask' in comparison with 'nasal prongs' or 'rotation of nasal mask with nasal prongs' reduce the incidence of nasal injury in preterm neonates supported on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP): A randomized controlled trial
Tanveer Bashir, Srinivas Murki, Sai Kiran, Venkat Kallem Reddy, Tejo Pratap Oleti, Tanveer Bashir, Srinivas Murki, Sai Kiran, Venkat Kallem Reddy, Tejo Pratap Oleti
Abstract
Background: With increasing use of nCPAP, the safety and comfort associated with nCPAP have come into the forefront. The reported incidence of nasal injuries associated with the use of nCPAP is 20% to 60%. A recent meta-analysis concluded that the use of nasal masks significantly decreases CPAP failure and the incidence of moderate to severe nasal injury and stress the need for a well powered RCT to confirm their findings.
Methods: In this Open label, 3 arms, sequential, stratified randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the incidence and severity of nasal injury at removal of nCPAP when using two different nasal interfaces and in three groups (i.e. rotation group, mask continue group, prong continue group). Preterm infants with gestation ≤ 30 weeks and respiratory distress within the first 6 hours of birth and in need of CPAP were eligible for the study.
Results: Among the 175 newborns included in the study, incidence of nasal injury in mask continue group [n = 19/57 (33.3%)] was significantly less as compared to prong continue group [n = 55/60 (91.6%)] and rotation group [33/ 58 (56.9%), p value <0.0001]. Median maximum nasal injury score was significantly less in Mask continue group as compared to Prong continue group and Rotation group [Injury Score 0 (IQR 0-1) vs. Injury Score 3 (IQR 2-5) vs. Injury Score 1 (IQR 0-2), p value = <0.0001] respectively. The proportion of infants failing nCPAP was similar across the three groups.
Conclusion: nCPAP with nasal masks significantly reduces nasal injury in comparison with nasal prongs or rotation of nasal prongs and nasal masks. However, the type of interface did not affect the nCPAP failure rates.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
References
- De Paoli AG, Davis PG, Faber B, Morley CJ. Devices and pressure sources for administration of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;CD002977 10.1002/14651858.CD002977.pub2
- Robertson NJ, McCarthy LS, Hamilton PA, Moss AL. Nasal deformities resulting from flow driver continuous positive airway pressure. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1996;75:F209–12.
- Yong S-C, Chen S-J, Boo N-Y. Incidence of nasal trauma associated with nasal prong versus nasal mask during continuous positive airway pressure treatment in very low birthweight infants: a randomised control study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90:F480–483. 10.1136/adc.2004.069351
- Buettiker V, Hug MI, Baenziger O, Meyer C, Frey B. Advantages and disadvantages of different nasal CPAP systems in newborns. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:926–30. 10.1007/s00134-004-2267-8
- Rego MAC, Martinez FE. Comparison of two nasal prongs for application of continuous positive airway pressure in neonates. Pediatr Crit Care Med J Soc Crit Care Med World Fed Pediatr Intensive Crit Care Soc. 2002;3:239–43.
- Fischer C, Bertelle V, Hohlfeld J, Forcada-Guex M, Stadelmann-Diaw C, Tolsa J-F. Nasal trauma due to continuous positive airway pressure in neonates. Arch Dis Child—Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95:F447–51. 10.1136/adc.2009.179416
- Jasani B, Ismail A, Rao S, Patole S. Effectiveness and safety of nasal mask versus binasal prongs for providing continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants-A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018;
- Alsop EA, Cooke J, Gupta S, Sinha SK. NASAL TRAUMA IN PRETERM INFANTS RECEIVING NASAL CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE. Arch Dis Child. 2008;93:n23.
- Khan J, Sundaram V, Murki S, Bhatti A, Saini SS, Kumar P. Nasal injury and comfort with jet versus bubble continuous positive airway pressure delivery systems in preterm infants with respiratory distress. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176:1629–35. 10.1007/s00431-017-3016-7
- Newnam KM, McGrath JM, Salyer J, Estes T, Jallo N, Bass WT. A comparative effectiveness study of continuous positive airway pressure-related skin breakdown when using different nasal interfaces in the extremely low birth weight neonate. Appl Nurs Res ANR. 2015;28:36–41. 10.1016/j.apnr.2014.05.005
- Kieran EA, Twomey AR, Molloy EJ, Murphy JFA, O’Donnell CPF. Randomized trial of prongs or mask for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e1170–1176. 10.1542/peds.2011-3548
- Goel S, Mondkar J, Panchal H, Hegde D, Utture A, Manerkar S. Nasal Mask Versus Nasal Prongs for Delivering Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian Pediatr. 2015;52:1035–40.
- Chandrasekaran A, Thukral A, Jeeva Sankar M, Agarwal R, Paul VK, Deorari AK. Nasal masks or binasal prongs for delivering continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates-a randomised trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176:379–86. 10.1007/s00431-017-2851-x
Source: PubMed