Status and phase
Conditions
Treatments
About
Despite widely used of nasal CPAP in preterm infants, uncertainties regarding aspects of its application remain. Clinical indications vary greatly between institutions, especially when combined with varieties of systems, devices, and techniques available. One of the controversial aspects that needs to be clarified is the level of pressure which should be used. The objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of two ranges of nCPAP pressure that are within the spectrum of current practice for post-extubation support in very preterm infants.
Full description
The use of nCPAP has been established as an effective respiratory support to prevent extubation failure and as treatment of other pulmonary diseases. An upsurge in its popularity has resulted in some controversial aspects, including the level of pressure to be used. The level that has been used in very preterm infants after extubation, which mostly came from anecdotal data, varies from 3 to 10 cmH2O.
Physiologic studies show higher nCPAP pressures improve lung mechanical properties. Though potential side effects have been of concern in practical application, there is no formal evidence supporting the concept that increased CPAP pressure results in a higher risk of complications. In relatively stable preterm infants, the range of optimal CPAP level needs to be established in order to adequately support the upper airway and lungs, without increasing complications secondary to the pressure applied. Given the uncertainty of the nCPAP pressure that should be used in very preterm infants, we conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of two ranges of nCPAP pressure for post-extubation support in very preterm infants.
The purpose of this trial is to compare the rate of successful extubation of using the nasal CPAP level of 7 to 9 cmH2O compared to level of 4 to 6 cmH2O.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
23 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal