Acta Paediatr. 2024 May 4. doi: 10.1111/apa.17261. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To analyse the evidence of non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in preterm neonates compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and included studies where NIV-NAVA was analysed in preterm (<37 gestational weeks) born neonates. Our main outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, the need for surfactant therapy, and reintubation rates. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of five studies were included. The endotracheal intubation rate was 25% in the NIV-NAVA group and 26% in the nCPAP group (RR 0.91, CI: 0.56-1.48). The respective rates for surfactant therapy were 30% and 35% (RR 0.85, CI: 0.56-1.29). The reintubation rate in neonates previously invasively ventilated was 8% in the NIV-NAVA group and 29% in the nCPAP/NIPPV group (RR 0.29, 95%CI: 0.10-0.81). Evidence certainty was rated as low for all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: NIV-NAVA as the primary respiratory support did not reduce the need for endotracheal intubation or surfactant therapy. NIV-NAVA seemed to reduce the reintubation rate after extubation in pre-term neonates.
PMID:38703014 | DOI:10.1111/apa.17261
