Yllescas-Medrano E, Cordero-González G, Carrera-Muiños S, Mancera-Rodríguez S

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 166-170
PDF size: 244.73 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of nasal prongs versus oxygen hood as respiratory support after the retirement of nasal continuous airway pressure or nasopharyngeal ventilation (respiratory support phase II), in newborn ‹ 37 weeks of gestation. Materials and methods: We performed a comparative, prospective, longitudinal and analytical study of preterm babies during the retirement of the second phase of the respiratory support that required supplementary oxygen by nasal prongs or oxygen hood. Patients included were clinically stables with normal blood gases. They were under observation to detect apneas or clinical deterioration of the respiratory status to evaluate the need to return to phase II of respiratory support. Quantitative variables were compared using t Student test and the qualitative ones with χ² test. Relative risks were calculated. Results: We compared 33 newborns in nasal prongs versus 34 in oxygen hood. There were not statistical differences among sex, weight, gestational age, strategy of phase II respiratory support or the respiratory diagnosis. There were no clinical differences in the oxygen saturation, events of hyper oxygenation, events of apnea, blood gases concentrations, blood pressure, temperature and heart rate at 48 and 72 hours pf evaluation. Nasal lesions were predominant in the group of nasal prongs 48.5 versus 11.8% with the oxygen hood (p = 0.003). Nasal prongs success to be on phase I of respiratory support was 84.8 versus 58.8% in the oxygen hood (RR 0.36, IC 95% 0.14 to 0.9). Conclusions: Nasal prongs was more effective to avoid failure in the retirement of the phase II of respiratory support, but they were associated with an increment in the frequency of nasal lesions.

REFERENCES

1. Davis PG, Henderson, Smart DJ. Presión positiva nasal continua en las vías respiratorias inmediatamente después de la extubación para prevenir la morbilidad en recién nacidos (revisión Cochrane traducida) en la biblioteca Cochrane Plus. 2008; 4 Oxford.

2. Jackson JK, Ford SP, Meinert KA, Leick-Rude MK, Anderson B, Sheehan MB et al. Standardizing nasal cannula oxygen administration in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2006; 118: S187-S96.

3. Gilmore M. Preterm VLBW infants: post-extubation respiratory support. J Perinatol. 2006; 26: 449-51.

4. Finer N. Nasal cannula use in preterm infant: oxygen or pressure? Pediatrics. 2005; 116: 1216-7.

5. Amoozegar H, Farvardin M, Pishva N. Measurement of nasal cannula pressure in neonates. J Arab Neonatal Forum. 2006; 3: 47-51.

6. Saslow J, Aghai Z, Nakhla T, Hart J, Lawrysh R, Stahi G. Work of breathing using high-flow nasal cannula in preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2006; 26: 476-80.

7. Woodhead D, Lambert D, Clark J, Christensen R. Comparing two methods of delivering high-flow gas therapy by nasal cannula following endotracheal extubation: a prospective, randomized, masked, crossover trial. J Perinatol. 2006; 26: 481-5.

8. Sreenan C, Lemke RP, Hudson-Mason A, Osiovich H. High-flow nasal cannulae in the management of apnea of prematurity: a comparison with conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Pediatrics. 2001; 107: 1081-3.

9. Schiffmam H. Humidification of respired gases in neonates and infants. Resp Care Clin N Am. 2006; 12: 321-36.